Purposeful Cheating, ...or: Do you inform your players when you do? Options

[Speed Wraith]

No, I don't mean fudging dice rolls to keep a long-term antagonist alive for another story or even making sure a lucky roll doesn't needlessly kill off a PC, I'm talking about directly breaking the rules for the sake of a good story.

Normally, I do my best to find a loophole or way around the rule that is standing in my way of drawing out the plot I want to use, but in this case I think I've exhausted all the exploits I've tried. So do you guys ever cheat when designing stories? I know I'm new here so folks don't know me, but I'm really not trying to be munchkin-jerky-GM. I just have an idea for something that I see as too good to pass up because it would work so well to bring about the right sense of horror and shock for my group. I've already told them that I plan on explicity breaking the rules for a unique situation, since I'm not used to actually doing so, but what do you guys do in this situation? Do you just trash the plot or do you run with it? Do you tell your players or no?

[Tarantula]

What are you trying to do, and what rules does it break?

[Speed Wraith]

See, I didn't want to explain it because it woud sound Munchkin or silly without the background of the characters (one in particular) and I don't want to bore folks with those details. Not to mention I know that at least one of my players (that one in particular to make it worse!) lurks these forums (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[paws2sky]

My #1 concern as a GM is keeping people entertained; every player and me, of course. If we're not having fun, I'll call it a day or try to resolve things quickly so we can move on to something more interesting. If that involves "cheating" or making an on-the-spot GM ruling, then so be it.

My players don't mind, so I don't worry too much about doing something weird if it helps keep the fun factor up.

[darthmord]

Also keep in mind that sometimes, things just work how they do rules be damned.

Think about that power focus from Bottled Demon... that's hardly within the rules for a power focus but it still works how it works.

I think people get hung up on breaking the rules when they are really concerned about ignoring the rules. Yes, they are two entirely different concepts. Breaking the rules still acknowledges that the rules are in effect and exist but have an exception. Ignoring them simply means they aren't even considered.

[Speed Wraith]

I think people get hung up on breaking the rules when they are really concerned about ignoring the rules. Yes, they are two entirely different concepts. Breaking the rules still acknowledges that the rules are in effect and exist but have an exception. Ignoring them simply means they aren't even considered.

Okay, that's the sort of point that eases my mind. My biggest worry is that the players will try to replicate the situation, though that shouldn't be a problem in this case anyway.

[nezumi]

In regards to gear, the books only cover the stuff generally available to shadowrunners (discounting rigger 3, anyway). There is certainly a cyberdeck out there more powerful than a fairlight excalibur, a focus which works in a way not replicable my most any thaumatological method, creatures that seem to do the impossible and so on. Your runners should understand this; there's always a bigger fish, and that fish doesn't necessarily follow the rules of their little pond.

In regards to mechanics - yeah, the rules are there to have fun. If for some reason they're keeping people from having fun, change the rules. Just make sure you're fair about it. If it works for the NPCs, it should probably work for the PCs as well.

[Stahlseele]

as long as you're fair . . if you get to break the rules and the PC's actually MANAGE to duplicate the situation, you had better let them accomplish the same . . and if it's game-breaking? well, shucks, such things happen with breaking rules *g*

[Lionhearted]

I'd like to make a reference to the first page of the D&D Dungeon master's guide "Rule no 1: It's your world"
You are the Game master, you are god over your game.. If the rules says your players can destroy a citymaster with a single extremely lucky 9mm bullet, and you say no way, the book has no say.
If you say, this can happen in my game.. the books have no say, with that said..
it doesnt mean that the rules should be ignored, if they were.. you my god sir, has just wasted a handful of dollars on a book you wont use. the rules are for simplicity and coherence, and first and foremost balance.
They are not the ten commandments who you must not break under any cirumstances.

Edit: A tad melodramatic perhaps..

[Cantankerous]

Personally I think as a GM that I already have too much control over the story. Just because it doesn't go in the direction I wanted to take it, doesn't mean that it is irrevocably broken now. It has just altered and low and behold it is now time for me, Mr GM, to think on his feet.

I am a FIRM believer in organically grown stories. If person A dies, well, "so sorry Madame, but he died with his boots on". We take it in to account and roll onward. If you set yourself to respond creatively it can only deepen the suspension of disbelief, it can only help verisimilitude.

Nope, if push comes to shove I let the result flow naturally. It has made for some incredibly deep story lines. It has made my Players paranoid in a genre where that is supposed to be part of the backdrop. They plan and execute and take the FOW and turn it on it's ear and come out the other end stronger. Or they don't come out it. And if I changed that they would be less thrilled when Monday night rolls around and the fat is in the fire for fair once again.

Making the results count is stressy for a GM at first, but only until you begin to understand what you are really doing is providing entertainment and then use that knowledge to deepened the story when the PCs botch it by spilling the wrong name in the wrong place to the wrong guy and now the whole run is hosed and the corp that hired them is ... peeved ...at them.


Isshia

[deek]

I cheat as a GM. Like previously posted, the point to getting together and playing a game, is for everyone to have fun. If everyone is having fun, then I really don't care about breaking the rules. And I try to keep it fair, but if it comes down to it and my players persist, I'll tell them I just don't want "that" in our game, and try and move on.

99% of the time, everyone is okay with that.

[Jaid]

i am of the opinion that it's perfectly acceptable to break the rules, as long as you know you are breaking the rules and you're doing it for a reason. (the most important reason of all generally being the aforementioned reason that it increases the amount of fun everyone involved is having). particularly so in a game like shadowrun [edit] (or at least SR4) [/edit], the rules are more like guidelines than anything else. but in pretty much any game, if there comes a time where following the rules is going to make the game less fun, exciting, awesome, or whatever it is that you want your game to be, then the time has come to do what will make the game better, and forget about the rules for a while.

[sunnyside]

The proper term you're looking for is "house rule"

Beyond that though I'll almost always let the dice fall where they will.

[Muspellsheimr]

As a player, I am typically just fine with it as long as it is clear it's GM fiat.

Of course, I am very much a rules-monger, so unless it is clear it is being done intentionally, I will bring it up, and likely start an argument.

[sunnyside]

Oh one other thing. If I had worked something out, and something clever they did totally worked around it, I've told my players I reserve the right to hose over their attempted action but I'll give them a pat on the bakc and some extra karma.

This woudl only be for good ideas of course.

[toturi]

I cheat as a GM. Like previously posted, the point to getting together and playing a game, is for everyone to have fun. If everyone is having fun, then I really don't care about breaking the rules. And I try to keep it fair, but if it comes down to it and my players persist, I'll tell them I just don't want "that" in our game, and try and move on.

99% of the time, everyone is okay with that.

As a player, I am always aware that the GM can screw with the PCs anyhow and anywhen he pleases. That's the problem of having a GM. A better story for the GM might not a better story for the players. You either suck it up or leave.

However when I am the GM, I am aware that if the players want that in the game, then I should give it to them if it would make the game fun for them. As a GM, I am not selfish enough to say that my sense of fun is more important than the collective fun of my players.

[Glyph]

I don't think having an NPC or item that is outside the scope of the normal rules for PCs is really "cheating" - the rules are not all-inclusive. But whatever it is should still fall within the laws of the universe for SR - no teleportation, etc. To me, cheating is when the GM arbitrarily makes something happen no matter what the players do. The GM sets the plot into motion, but the players should be able to affect it, and the dice should be allowed to provide their random influence to the game, even if it's not the most "cool" thing to happen, or messes up the plot.

[masterofm]

Provide some flexibility to your mission and try to be creative and think on your feet. Things will never work the way you want them to or consider what they might do. There are many players that can spot a railroad from a mile away, so I try to stay away from this as much as possible, but it's your setting and as long as the party finds it enjoyable then thats what matters. If you throw something at them just to be kind an asshole and just constantly ram the party... well thats just bad GMing in my opinion.

[Cantankerous]

Now therein lies the rub that Master just brought up. A good Player can spot a railroad from a mile away...and usually good Players resent the bejesus out of them.

Railroading in any game, but maybe especially in a game where the backdrop is societally based on now (with additions) is always inimical to the verisimilitude of the game. The Players have to feel that the GM is going to give them (the Players) every freedom possible because the society so often restricts what the Characters are able to do that in-situ railroading can't be avoided period. There's enough of it in game without the GM ham handing it in for the sake of "the story".

Now, there are always exceptions too. Sometimes Players get so irrationally attached to their characters, or even to a specific piece of equipment (if you are reading this Ray, yes, I am referring to you and that damned Yamaha Rapier) that if the GM can feel very assured that his ham hands won't get noticed in the process he can let a success or two slide here and there, or even make a clean miss with an AVM out of what should have been a hit (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) But the temptation to do this for NPCs should be avoided like the very plague.


Isshia

[masterofm]

Exactly. I mean in a game where a GM will just knocks you around, as a player, it really does make me feel like "Why don't I go play a linear RPG video game if I want to get railroaded this hard? Or maybe the story mode of HL2 (is it just me or did that game feel like you were just running through a small cramped tunnel?)" There are points where a GM does railroad a party, but if you are good at bringing up SR as a world where things are crazy and as shadowrunners you will just uncover stuff the likes of which you have never seen before? Yeah thats fine. It's hard and it does take skill to railroad a party w/o them knowing it. Yet if you do it badly and it makes a party feel like "Grab the fire orb and insert into the fire temple so you can fight the fire boss," Sorry I would rather play Final Fantasy 2.

Something like a Johnson comes up and offers the party a job and they turn it down, and then a few minutes later another Johnson comes by with a very similar job = very very bad.

As a player I like when a GM says "Sorry guys but this run will be heavily scripted" is not a bad move, but if a GM throws out a mission that a party would clearly not take for the amount of money offered, or become insulted? Yeah it's now time to play the mission "GM is totally winging it," and not the "I'm going to push this run on you even if it kills me."

Other then that? Yeah there are a few rolls that I will tone down or beef up just to add a cinematic quality to the game.

[Critias]

Honestly, I can't give an opinion at all without knowing the specifics of what it is you have in mind. A GM asking when it's okay to "cheat" is such a vague question, that can mean so many different things, I genuinely can't anwer the question without knowing what you're wanting to do, exactly (and, of course, even then I can only tell you whether I'd do it as a GM or not, or what I'd think of it as a player were it to happen to me).

At any rate, don't worry about "boring us." If folks don't want to read it, they can scroll down (we all do it all the time).

[Sir_Psycho]

I think GM'ing is inherently subjective, and not "cheating" is hard.

I mean, if I've got 3 players approaching a facility, where there's a sniper, how do you choose which character he sets his sights on? And worse, if there's an NPC on the team, how do you resist the temptation to have HIS head blown off first and give your pals/players a chance to dive for cover?

[toturi]

I mean, if I've got 3 players approaching a facility, where there's a sniper, how do you choose which character he sets his sights on? And worse, if there's an NPC on the team, how do you resist the temptation to have HIS head blown off first and give your pals/players a chance to dive for cover?

So let the PCs have a fair chance at spotting the sniper. It is not that difficult, especially if the sniper does not have magical enhancements. Call a Perception Test to spot the sniper normally. If they don't spot the sniper, then just before the sniper actually takes the shot, roll Perception again and then roll Surprise Test (p155 SR4).

[Stahlseele]

with 3 players it's easy enough . .1D6/3 . . 1 or 2, guy1 gets it, 3 or 4 guy2 gets it, 5 or 6 guy3 gets it

[Critias]

Or you could take a look at the characters as if through a sniper's scope. Is one guy a massive troll that's moving way too fast for his size, lugging around a heavy machine gun you really don't want pointed at you? Is another a willowy elf with a bunch of dangling charms hanging off the fringes of a buckskin jacket, with beads and feathers in his hair and little by way of obvious weaponry? Is the third character a skinny chick carrying around a cyberdeck instead of a gun?

Don't randomize it. Pretend you're the sniper, and prioritize your targets just like a sniper should.