Quote from: Bren;925619Sigh. And people who say they play in character all the time are also full of shit, right?

Actually, yes, no one can be IC all the time, it's difficult, which is why it's so important to not have a system which FORCES you OOC.

Quote from: rgrove0172;925362This might start up an argument of its own but Ill risk it. I see it rather like a GM that rolls for damage on a monster's attack and rolls max damage behind his screen. The hit would therefor kill a main character very early in the evening and do to no fault of the player's other than dumb luck. Instead, as the player cant read over the screen, he drops the result a point or two and wounds the character critically. The player reacts as one might expect, going defensive, popping the limited resource of potions etc. and the game goes on. Granted, this shouldn't happen constantly but tell me you GMs have never done it. Its harmless, in favor of the players, and furthers the game. Sin?

Not a sin per se, but I want you to understand that I prefer not to do this, and that I think that not fudging has a value and that I would prefer it to be agreed whether fudging is being done or not, rather than to conceal it.

I have cheated in the way you describe twice:

Once as the GM, in a long-standing campaign, the player would have been killed by a damage roll in a duel with a serious NPC, which I wasn't expecting. I chose to invent an in-game magic intervention from something I had not thought of before. I invented a manifestation for something I felt as the GM - that PC was now being protected by a very powerful magic sentinal that had the power to intervene at least in this one crucial point and have the foe's weapon break from a clearly magical effect that had no explanation before I invented it to keep the PC alive. I pretended as if this were something mysterious but pre-established, and gave it hints and hoped it would let the player know he'd been saved by something. In retrospect, I imagine the player could read exactly that's what I was doing and pretended not to, I imagine/project out of also not wanting his PC to die then.

The other time was as a player. My long-surviving character got hit a few times, and then a blow did enough to kill my PC, but the GM was having me track my own damage, and I paused and said it was enough to make me unconscious instead of dead (in RAW TFT, characters are very fragile and there's only a one-point margin between death and unconsciousness). Again, in retrospect I imagine the GM probably realized what I was doing and let it pass, and again I project he probably didn't want me to die.

Both of these happened 30+ years ago, and they informed my thinking since. They shook up my thinking about how to play. They bothered me, a lot, mainly in that I had cheated and lied about it. I felt how it undermined the agreement of play, even though they were desirable results. I kept thinking about what could or should be done about it. My ideas and ways of playing, and rules chosen, have changed and evolved over the decades, but I have never agreed with the idea that one should pretend to have one set of rules and then lie about changing outcomes like those. I understood that to do so is to play a different game than one says one is playing, to not really know or be able to choose what the real rules are, and to fool oneself and others about it.

If you find yourself fudging to keep characters alive, no matter what justifications you may have, I would suggest that it would be significantly better to add a house rule and explain it up front before play. Figure out the actual rules by which you play, and explain and use those, but then go by the rules. Figure out where your actual line is where you would kill or spare the players. Is it that you just reserve the choice to your sense of what's best? Or are some stages not really in you-risk-your-life mode, because you'd fudge if someone died? (If so, why are you pretending and who are you fooling and why? I'd hate to be taking the tactics seriously and find out it doesn't really matter. Maybe you should just declare narrative mode sometimes, or hey, maybe you are happy with what you do, but I would not be as a player, unless perhaps I knew up front what was going on.) Is it that it's something about how extreme the margin is? Can you quantify it?

For example, we switched to GURPS, where instead of having about 11 points of damage capacity (which you _might_ suffer in one good blow), where getting down to 3 means -3DX and half speed, and 1 means you're unconscious, and zero or below you're dead, GURPS means you have about 11 points of damage capacity (which you _might_ suffer in one good blow), you start to fall unconscious at zero or below, might die when you reach -11, and aren't utterly surely dead unless you fail a health roll to avoid death, or reach -55 or your head comes off. So there's a built-in survivability that is far more generous than we ever would have been in TFT, and I don't feel any temptation to tip dice, even though PCs can and do sometimes die unexpectedly (critical hits, bleeding rules, infection rules, damage multipliers, large axes, arrows into eye sockets, etc). I.e. it's also quite possible to die from a single 5-point injury, if so one stops the bleeding and you fail some health rolls, for example. Those rules add many ways for both the players and the NPCs to take in-gameworld actions to do something to affect who is liable to die or not, both in combat and in later first aid, rest, etc., and THAT is essentially what was suddenly felt missing in the TFT deaths I had fudged - reduced risk, much more likelihood of not just actually dead when defeated, a broader range of injury status consequences, and things to do about them.

In musing on the fudging, though, it was clear that fudging one death had changed the type of game being played, and what had happened. Where these PCs had actually survived fairly for years, beating all sorts of awful risks with actual good choices and good fortune, and had earned XP and loot for it where others had died fairly, now I was painfully unignorably aware that that was no longer true. Since a big point of play seemed to be playing out actual situations and seeing what happens, having fudged undermined all of that. I was surprised to find that I had chosen to fudge to avoid death, and that called into question what the actual risk of death was. I didn't like any answers I could find for quite a while, except that I shouldn't have done that, and I was not so happy any more with the TFT death rules. It's also part of why I like the active defense rules in GURPS, which give players under attack choices with trade-offs about what to do to reduce the risk of injury when coming under attack.

Quote from: rgrove0172;925332Sometimes it sounds as if some of you would plan, oh say a Bandit encounter by exact location, time and circumstance and if the players didn't blunder exactly into those specific parameters then it wouldn't happen. If you altered those parameters even slightly however to trigger the bandit encounter anyway, youd be railroading. If so, that's ridiculous. I would almost guarantee a HUGE majority of GMs simply jot down on a notepad "Bandits on road to castle - " and make it happen.

Yes, of course I would, sort of. But since I know this is what I am doing, I figure out what several things are near the PCs, and game it out knowing that various things can happen. Bandits aren't one possible even at one place in space/time. There's a map with bandits and others on it, and chances for other things to enter play, etc. When gaming that way, I am never in the railroad prep mode of focusing prep on only one set of things happening, and being disappointed if they don't. Instead, whether the PCs meet the bandits and in what circumstances depends on what they do, where they go, what the others do, etc. That whole level of play is very interesting to me as player or GM, and is why I do it, and why I try to avoid forced and scripted alternatives, and narrative cause & effect, etc. I have seen and tried many many different approaches, and I tend to like games that really try to be actually about the situations they say they are about, as opposed to being in a story controlled by invention and expectations.

I don't always game that way. But I really like to, and you don't seem to get what it's about or why, or to believe it exists.

Estar and rgrove and perhaps others have asserted that a good GM can fudge/invent/railroad without detection, or are bad GM's if they can't. That doesn't ring true to me at all. I agree a GM may fool all of the people some of the time, and  some people all of the time, and there are some seeds of truth in what they're saying. But overall I don't think that avoids or dissolves the issue at all. As Bren has said, I find that for me, it's far easier to detect GM manipulation than it is for me as GM to detect whether players know what I am manipulating or not.

I have played with several really good GMs who have fudged, railroaded, forced outcomes, steered things along intended plotlines, narrated prepared events, and improvised things into existence, and it was really clear that was what they were doing, even though they were doing it really well. When they were doing otherwise, the contrast was often quite evident both in what they did and just in their manner and affect and style and timing and so on.

In many cases, such GM's came up with situations that they had us arrive at, with clearly planned events that were interesting and challenging, and then at some point as the players started to respond to the situations in ways that weren't entirely planned out or involved dice and actual dynamic play, they were able to switch into a dynamic responsive mode where now things could be interacted with and caused to play out in new ways they were no longer controlling by fiat. I tend to find the dynamic parts the most interesting and game-like, and I'm glad to have played under GM's that can do that.

I've also played with GM's who can't do that very well, and those GM's I tend to stop playing with.

Moreover, playing with GM's who can support doing all sorts of things, and whose words and game situations can go all sorts of ways and make sense, and who are not attached to some particular clever series of things being done by the players, is just a different kind of gaming that I really appreciate. Many GM's are great at what they do but don't do that sort of thing much. They can still be fun to play with but it's not the same sort of game.

Just want to make sure I get this right:

Random Encounter - (Rolls Dice) - 75 - Blink Dog. You guys knew it was really supposed to be a Beholder and the GM pulled the Punch, eh? - Complete and Utter Horseshit.

Attack the Giant - Rolls dice - that's 54 HPs total, it dies.  You guys know the giant really had 64 hps and the GM is taking it easy on you, or 44 and he's being a dick? - Complete and Utter Horseshit.

Three rounds into combat, the GM starts rolling dice for some reason...three rounds later, a Woodsman Patrol comes to save your ass from Beastmen.  You can tell whether the Woodsmen were there, and he was rolling to see if they heard and how long it would take to get there, or if he decided to help out a little? - Complete and Utter Horseshit.

You make a successful perception check going through some woods - you find the tracks of orcs you're hunting.  You can tell I suppose that the GM moved the orc lair ten miles over, across the river and on the other side of a hill you just happen to be near because he wants to finish up early because he just got a Booty Call? - Complete and Utter Horseshit.

Protip: If the GM's style, delivery, timing, etc. changes when he's fudging - he sucks at it.

I'm with the play it straight and don't cheat club, and I castigate Grove mightily, but the idea that a good GM can't hide a cheat - that's just Batshit Fucking Loco.

Quote from: CRKrueger;925646Actually, yes, no one can be IC all the time, it's difficult, which is why it's so important to not have a system which FORCES you OOC.

Its just short of impossible unless the player isnt rolling dice or ever looking at a character sheet and no other player is doing anything OOC either. Not and there still be a game in there.

I can cheat all damn day, but I prefer not to. I will however do WTF it takes to make sure a 4 hour convention game gets its beginning, middle and end before that final hour chimes.

Of course, we can rail on GM styles all night long, but what I care about is this: Are you and your players having a great time? Are you happy to run again next week? Are your players happy to return? If the answer is yes, then you're doing it right EVEN if your style wouldn't work for me.

But if our GM styles are different, remember that you're just a terrible person and your lame players suck ass no matter how much fun you degenerate freaks may be having.

Quote from: Skarg;925650If you find yourself fudging to keep characters alive, no matter what justifications you may have, I would suggest that it would be significantly better to add a house rule and explain it up front before play. Figure out the actual rules by which you play, and explain and use those, but then go by the rules. Figure out where your actual line is where you would kill or spare the players. Is it that you just reserve the choice to your sense of what's best? Or are some stages not really in you-risk-your-life mode, because you'd fudge if someone died? (If so, why are you pretending and who are you fooling and why? I'd hate to be taking the tactics seriously and find out it doesn't really matter. Maybe you should just declare narrative mode sometimes, or hey, maybe you are happy with what you do, but I would not be as a player, unless perhaps I knew up front what was going on.) Is it that it's something about how extreme the margin is? Can you quantify it?

There are lots of RPGs that have various safeties built in to lessen the risk that characters die unexpectedly. If the table wants to mitigate PC risk I’d prefer the GM to use one of those systems or as Skarg suggests, create a house rule.

Quote from: Skarg;925652I don't always game that way. But I really like to, and you don't seem to get what it's about or why, or to believe it exists.

That is also the impression I get as well.

Quote from: Skarg;925653Estar and rgrove and perhaps others have asserted that a good GM can fudge/invent/railroad without detection, or are bad GM's if they can't. That doesn't ring true to me at all. I agree a GM may fool all of the people some of the time, and  some people all of the time, and there are some seeds of truth in what they're saying. But overall I don't think that avoids or dissolves the issue at all. As Bren has said, I find that for me, it's far easier to detect GM manipulation than it is for me as GM to detect whether players know what I am manipulating or not.

Yes. GMs who use trickery often overestimate their ability to fool all the players all of the time. And we aren’t talking about matters of certitude we are talking about what is the most likely explanation for observed phenomena.

Quote from: CRKrueger;925657Just want to make sure I get this right:

Taking your statement at face value, you are correct that sometimes GM trickery is undetectable. I don’t think I said all trickery was detectable. If I did, then I misspoke. But over time trickery tends to be found out if anyone looks for it. I strongly suspect many players collude in GM trickery by either consciously or unconsciously trying not to notice when it is likely to have occurred. This would tend to make GMs who use trickery overestimate their abilities to conceal such things.

QuoteRandom Encounter - (Rolls Dice) - 75 - Blink Dog. You guys knew it was really supposed to be a Beholder and the GM pulled the Punch, eh? - Complete and Utter Horseshit.

Not detectable.

QuoteAttack the Giant - Rolls dice - that's 54 HPs total, it dies.  You guys know the giant really had 64 hps and the GM is taking it easy on you, or 44 and he's being a dick? - Complete and Utter Horseshit.

Easily detectable that this is not a normal OD&D Hill Giant. Hill Giants have 8 hit dice for a maximum of 48 hit points, so there is something fishy about requiring 54 HPs to put him down, much less requiring 64.

Protip: The cheating GM isn’t always making things easier on the players.

QuoteThree rounds into combat, the GM starts rolling dice for some reason...three rounds later, a Woodsman Patrol comes to save your ass from Beastmen.  You can tell whether the Woodsmen were there, and he was rolling to see if they heard and how long it would take to get there, or if he decided to help out a little? - Complete and Utter Horseshit.

A single instance? No you can’t detect that. A pattern of last minute saves by the fantasy cavalry over time strongly indicates GM cheating.

QuoteYou make a successful perception check going through some woods - you find the tracks of orcs you're hunting.  You can tell I suppose that the GM moved the orc lair ten miles over, across the river and on the other side of a hill you just happen to be near because he wants to finish up early because he just got a Booty Call? - Complete and Utter Horseshit.

That depends on how familiar the area is. Orc lairs aren’t likely to appear overnight. But in an unfamiliar area, not detectable.

QuoteProtip: If the GM's style, delivery, timing, etc. changes when he's fudging - he sucks at it.

I'm with the play it straight and don't cheat club, and I castigate Grove mightily, but the idea that a good GM can't hide a cheat - that's just Batshit Fucking Loco.

Being a good GM does not require being a good cheater. And good cheaters can be lousy GMs. But if you want to entirely define the problem away by assuming cheating is always undetectable, will OK then. Nobody knows when the awesome cheater GM cheats because remaining undetectable is part of the definition of being an awesome cheating GM.

Now that we have defined that problem away we can all retire to the Perfect Island, which must exist by definition, and contemplate Decartes’ “Cogito ergo sum.”

Quote from: Bren;925696Easily detectable that this is not a normal OD&D Hill Giant. Hill Giants have 8 hit dice for a maximum of 48 hit points, so there is something fishy about requiring 54 HPs to put him down, much less requiring 64.

What the hell? Where in the chain of posts is it implied anybody is talking about a particular edition of D&D. It quite obvious that CK was thinking of AD&D in coming up with the numbers where hit dice for monster is a d8. You didn't answer his point.

As for the rest of your specifics, yes if you consistently cheat a pattern will emerge and the players will notice. What your point? We all know that, I said it and other said that. CK is right calling it horseshit that a referee deciding on an arbitrary result once in a while is automatically detectable. It could be detectable if done poorly.

Quote from: Bren;925696Being a good GM does not require being a good cheater.

True.

Quote from: Bren;925696And good cheaters can be lousy GMs.

True.

Quote from: Bren;925696But if you want to entirely define the problem away by assuming cheating is always undetectable, will OK then.

I'm doing nothing of the sort, and you know that, or should if you were thinking clearly.

Quote from: Bren;925696Nobody knows when the awesome cheater GM cheats because remaining undetectable is part of the definition of being an awesome cheating GM.

Now you're misstating my position.

BTW, where did I say OD&D or even "Hill"? I didn't, so the Giant example isn't detectable either.

You agreed with me that those were undetectable unless they become a pattern.

My actual position was:
Changing up your style when fudging makes you detectable.
Always fudging, steering, etc, makes you detectable.
Fudging/steering once in a while to get a desired result, if the GM doesn't obviously telegraph it, will be near impossible to detect.  By anyone.  Even Benoist.

These are things that no one should be objecting to, if they aren't laying their balls on the table and beating their chest bragging about their Uber Railroad Detection skills RAAR!!! No, I'm not targeting you, just all the people in this thread who apparently think that in their whole gaming careers, a GM's never fudged them without their detection.

Quote from: CRKrueger;925706BTW, where did I say OD&D or even "Hill"? I didn't, so the Giant example isn't detectable either.

My mistake. I don't know why I read it as a Hill Giant. It's kind of weird actually as that is how I read it. Then I thought, I wonder how many hit dice a Hill Giant has, which, unlike the D&D Troll's 6HD+3, I couldn't recall the exact number. So I looked it up in my old D&D books, saw it was 8 hit dice, and I thought - Ah Ha! Counter example. Double sigh.

But if you said Hill Giant it would have been a possible counter example. Which also goes to show how sometimes cheating gets detected by the careless cheater.

QuoteYou agreed with me that those were undetectable unless they become a pattern.

I agree there are single incidents that cannot be detected. Some of those types of incidents can be detected when they form a pattern. Detection of some types of incidents (like turning near misses into hits and vice versa) are easier or only possible if the GM is open about dice rolling rather than hiding the dice rolled behind a GM screen.

QuoteMy actual position was:
Changing up your style when fudging makes you detectable.
Always fudging, steering, etc, makes you detectable.
Fudging/steering once in a while to get a desired result, if the GM doesn't obviously telegraph it, will be near impossible to detect.  By anyone.

I quibble a little with the phrase "obviously telegraph" as the ability of people to read subtleties varies so someone who is good at that may, like a good gambler, be able to read a lot from unobvious tells.

QuoteEven Benoist.

Presumably this is a humorous reference towards the poster known as Benoist. Like Data through much of TNG I just do not get it.

QuoteNo, I'm not targeting you, just all the people in this thread who apparently think that in their whole gaming careers, a GM's never fudged them without their detection.

OK then. I agree it is unreasonable for someone to claim to be able to detect all trickery.

Quote from: Bren;925725Presumably this is a humorous reference towards the poster known as Benoist.

Benoist is as old school play it straight as it gets, so I meant if he can get fudged and not detect it (and I contend he has) then anyone can.

I still detect an underlying current within many of the posts that seem to indicate some sort of competitive dynamic between players and GM. I know there are some games designed this way. My group enjoys the occasional game of Descent which is absolutely a competition. Most roleplaying games however aren't. The GM is there to facilitate and challenge, provoke and entertain, judge and manage, not to beat anybody. He has absolute power in making the game what it is therefore he can kill at a whim or make the whole party Kings! I cant say in all my days gaming the idea of the GM cheating ever even came to mind. Players cheating? Sure, Ive caught a few trying to hedge rolls, add modifiers that weren't there, conveniently forget hindering conditions etc. They are after all, competing against the system and setting to accomplish something. The GM however? His only goal is to make sure everyone has a good time!

I have always made this clear when starting a new group or campaign. I am there to present the world and manage the action so that everyone has fun. I may deviate from rules on occasion, manipulate the laws of nature and averages, and whatever else I deem appropriate in order to ensure this objective is reached. Nobody has ever accused me of 'cheating', not because it was obvious or not, but because it doesn't freaking matter! I would think its assumed the GM tinkers with the action at times, manipulates the setting, maneuvers situations and dangles NPCs on his strings. So what? Unless something dreadful happens to the characters and it seems as if the GM 'cheated' to cause it, I cant imagine ever even bringing it up as a player.

If 'cheating' means to operate counter to the rules as written. Every GM that has ever breathed is guilty, no arguments please...

If 'cheating' means to take unscrupulous action counter to the rules in order to win a contest, then only a complete dickhead GM would ever do such a thing and Ill go ahead and assume none of us fit that description.

So if we are going to talk railroading, illusionism or whatever, please lets remove the 'cheating' references. They just don't fit and lend a negative aspect to the approach that just doesn't belong there.

Quote from: rgrove0172;925736I have always made this clear when starting a new group or campaign. I am there to present the world and manage the action so that everyone has fun. I may deviate from rules on occasion, manipulate the laws of nature and averages, and whatever else I deem appropriate in order to ensure this objective is reached. Nobody has ever accused me of 'cheating', not because it was obvious or not, but because it doesn't freaking matter!

I would think its assumed the GM tinkers with the action at times, manipulates the setting, maneuvers situations and dangles NPCs on his strings. So what?

If you tinker, jiggle, juggle, massage and manipulate, then you are trying to make things fun for us.  If you hang back, and keep the thumb off the scale, then we're making fun for ourselves.

You have heard of why you don't assume, right?

Quote from: rgrove0172;925736If 'cheating' means to operate counter to the rules as written. Every GM that has ever breathed is guilty, no arguments please...

"Operating counter to RAW" does not mean "Operating counter to RAW differently whenever I wish to generate a different result."  Not the same thing at all.

Quote from: rgrove0172;925736So if we are going to talk railroading, illusionism or whatever, please lets remove the 'cheating' references. They just don't fit and lend a negative aspect to the approach that just doesn't belong there.

Can't do it, Hoss.  If I'm trying to catch an NPC, the NPC's rolls and my rolls determine I caught that NPC and you let the NPC escape simply because you didn't want me to catch him...you just cheated me.  Plainly, simply, cheated me.

Quote from: CRKrueger;925657Just want to make sure I get this right:

Random Encounter - (Rolls Dice) - 75 - Blink Dog. You guys knew it was really supposed to be a Beholder and the GM pulled the Punch, eh? - Complete and Utter Horseshit.

I likely wouldn't notice that, unless the GM really showed it. I would hope I wouldn't even know that he was rolling for a random encounter.

QuoteAttack the Giant - Rolls dice - that's 54 HPs total, it dies.  You guys know the giant really had 64 hps and the GM is taking it easy on you, or 44 and he's being a dick? - Complete and Utter Horseshit.

First time I've heard of a GM deciding to reduce the HP of a major foe, unless he knew the Giant would almost surely kill a PC next turn, and he was such a crap GM that he didn't realize he could have the giant do all sorts of other things, instead of breaking the rules of the game.

Keep a big monster alive that way? I might not know but I have been pretty sure things like that were happening with some crap GMs, who were visibly confused and pretty transparent. With a good GM I probably wouldn't be able to pick that detail out, especially because, especially in the games I like to play, and with GM's I consider good, lots of things could be going on. The giant could have some in-world reason for having more HP or soaking damage or not even really be a giant or who knows what.

But more broadly, with many GM's, one automatically starts to get a feel for what mode they're in, especially when they think it's part of their job to have things go a certain way, and they're chugging along but then have to switch modes when facing situations that weren't as they expected, or that they have to make up instead or just doing their script, or, yes, when the combat isn't playing out the way they want or expect. You know how little kids sound when they're lying about not having pooped their pants or not having had their cookie yet, or having done their homework? Some GM's have a tinge of that when they announce some of their combat results that happen to be about delicate events, and some of those GM's think it's part of their job so they don't even try to hide it sometimes, and/or talk about it outside play.

QuoteThree rounds into combat, the GM starts rolling dice for some reason...three rounds later, a Woodsman Patrol comes to save your ass from Beastmen.  You can tell whether the Woodsmen were there, and he was rolling to see if they heard and how long it would take to get there, or if he decided to help out a little? - Complete and Utter Horseshit.

Probably not in that situation. How about rgrove's situation from the other thread where no matter how many assassins in an alley you defeat, more appear until you need to retreat, and once you really are in danger because finally your HP are really low, that is the moment that the obvious plothook NPC manages to finish picking a lock and let you in to escape? Seems to me that either the GM is making you fight a surreal bogus encounter that he thinks is cool (as he said he was doing in the thread), or it's all staged by a completely unbelievable organization who so wants this to happen this way that it's willing to sacrifice a large number of assassins for dramatic effect. Combined with the tells of many even quite good GM's I've played with who switch between story mode and real play mode and something in-between, I'd think that at least sometimes, I'd have a strong sense of it.

QuoteYou make a successful perception check going through some woods - you find the tracks of orcs you're hunting.  You can tell I suppose that the GM moved the orc lair ten miles over, across the river and on the other side of a hill you just happen to be near because he wants to finish up early because he just got a Booty Call? - Complete and Utter Horseshit.

Did the GM let me roll my own perception check, or even say that's what dice were being rolled for? Hopefully not.

Depends on the GM's tells, and on how the gameplay usually goes around doing stuff outside.

In a game where outdoor movement and events involve a landscape where the GM has a detailed terrain map and considered long-range movements of PC & NPC elements over time, considering fields of vision and so on, unless the party is deep in unknown woods and isn't doing well tracking the orcs, there would tend (or at least their could be) major effects on what clues and observations were available if the orc lair were 10 miles in one direction or another, assuming the orcs leave the lair from time to time and leave footprints and tracks and scout around and whatever.

With a GM who doesn't even really use a map, there isn't even really anything I care about in play because he's just mostly making it up or requiring us to say we do things to his satsisfaction because that feels right to him, or maybe if we're lucky he has some chances assigned which reflect our choices and character skills and it's not just a matter of finding out how long before we get to the inevitable orc encounter he planned. We might not be able to tell exactly what happened or where the point of manipulation was, but it's usually pretty clear what sorts of things matter and what sorts of things are real or fake issues in a GM especially after playing with them for a while, because of their emphasis, what details they give, what questions he asks, what seems to work or have any effect, etc etc etc. There are many GMs, some of whom are "good" by many measures, where it's really clear most such details are mostly or entirely arbitrary and just for show and subject to the GM's whim, and other GMs who are interested in more of a sandbox/simulation thing and modeling some cause & effect and various possible outcomes and developments. And yes, for GM's who do some mix, there are often many tells, especially when they don't think there's much/any reason to try especially hard to hide the difference.

QuoteProtip: If the GM's style, delivery, timing, etc. changes when he's fudging - he sucks at it.

I'm with the play it straight and don't cheat club, and I castigate Grove mightily, but the idea that a good GM can't hide a cheat - that's just Batshit Fucking Loco.

If you mean that a GM who also gets that there is an important difference and who focuses on trying to not give it away, and is good at fudging and hiding it, then yeah you're probably right.

I am (and I expect others are) speaking of experience with actual GM's (some of whom were talented as GM's if not as undetectable fudgers), where it was often clear what was going on with their GM'ing, not that we could read their minds about details, but that we could tell if it switched from prepared "plot" content to adlib, and whether encounters were pre-planned by the GM as opposed to being the results of events caused unpredictably during play. In fact, for many good GM's, I think there's a skill of communicating what mode the GM is in, which as long as the players are ok with it, is a nonverbal way of signaling what mode he is GM'ing in, for reasons of efficiency and focus. If the GM has an elaborate tactical map of the bridge you're crossing with counters pre-placed, he's not hiding that this is a pre-planned situation, and this can be fine and I've often done it even in sandbox mode, though some GMs would allow changes in plan to change or bypass that setup, and others wouldn't, and the (un)availability of those options can often be pretty clear.

Just as a GM may sometimes explicitly say he's interested in fast-forwarding time or skipping some details or not roleplaying out some things at some points (and likely ask if that works for what they players have in mind, or if they don't mind or whatever), it seems to me that many GM's communicate some style and gameplay shifts and other metagame things by clues and cues of manner and mood and language, which they're not trying to hide, and becomes a way of interacting with the GM. This also extends into GMs telegraphing cause & effect which is outside the in-character in-world details. Crude examples include when GM's start describing things in lots of details and asking exactly what PCs are doing, where they're standing, what equipment they're carrying where on their bodies etc., or when they just let in-town events be broadly described and done, versus when they describe the shopkeepers in detail. Or when they narrate a bunch of peculiar details of some NPCs doing things, such as the carriage house kerchief episode mentioned by someone. More subtly, players can learn what styles of communication and what types of things they can say and/or how they say them can result in more or less favorable, or different types of, results and attention from a GM. Some GM's respond to the most vocal or aggressive players. Other GMs respond favorably to players who take their clues and interests and play along and with them. Other GMs reward detailed explanations of caution. Others like clever ideas. Others warp their universe to accommodate rule of cool. Some will let you invent stuff to appear in their worlds with generosity, versus others who get mad at you for trying that, or for other player behavior. Sometimes it's pretty subtle. Players learn to play and interpret their GMs. Part of that is often being able to tell they are feeding you their juicy prep, or letting rolls stand no matter what versus fudging to avoid certain results, etc.

Also consider some reverse perspectives:

If your play sessions do seem to pretty clearly include having missed lots of stuff that was going on that logically you would have found if you'd gone a different way or traveled at a different pace or made different choices, then probably the GM isn't forcing that to happen.

If you try unexpected moves like going off-road and taking strange courses and pro-actively causing trouble and adventure and stuff, take initiative and drive events, and the GM allows it and it seems to have logical effects, the GM probably isn't artificially driving that.

If the GM describes stuff that it pretty clearly hooks into adventures and mysteries and detailed mapped places and so on, and the players think about it and choose to do something quite creative and different, and/or go explore someplace else instead, and the GM lets you go do that, and later those situations seem to have played out by themselves and/or been affected logically by what your group came up with by itself to do, then the GM probably isn't causing and forcing that unless he is a guru of manipulating players.

By contrast, if all the notable events and happening seem to be right when the players are there, often in seemingly coincidental ways, and not much that isn't plot-relevant happens, and all the clues end up being relevant to "the adventure" or "the plot", then that's probably the scope of the game being presented by the GM. Now, there are players as well as people in real life, who mainly react to others and situations around them. I've sometimes lived that way too, mainly when I was overwhelmed with commitments or needy friends, or when I was depressed. However if/when in the real world or some games, people start taking matters into their own hands, taking initiative, doing inventive or random/different things, then all sorts of other things are possible... unless it's a game where the GM (and not actual in-game faeries as in one example above, nor actual teleporting towers steered by a wizard hunting the PCs) is forcing certain things to happen.