There is a concept I think should enter the GM lexicon:

"Any sufficiently amusing or entertaining gambit should at least have a fair chance of succeeding."

In other words, if you make me grin or laugh at your audacity, I'll at least let the dice fall where they may.

Yeah I wholeheartedly agree with the Perception above.

In fact, I think in order to fully represent the setting to the players, I often keep tabs on their respective skills to offer them insight (passive or otherwise) that their character would know that the player may not be fully aware of. I'm especially conscious of things that are inherent to PC's that may have backgrounds that don't get "stats" - like a military character may understand and have conclusions on their passive/rolled Perception check that a non-military PC might not get.

In this regard it gives players more immersion in their character, as well as giving them meaningful information in which to base their decisions as indviduals or as a group. At *minimum* it becomes fodder for roleplaying which has its own inherent benefits.

Other people have made an interesting point:

I think the GM should ALWAYS play fair, but playing fair is part of the social contract.

If balanced encounters, fudging to save the PCs (or key NPCs) and railroading are EXPLICITLY part of the social contract (everyone agreed beforehand), or even if the PC reverts a TPK being sincere ("okay, this encounter was harder than I expect, let us do it again"), that is okay.

We are all consenting adults.

But if you have to lie, misdirect, and cheat to achieve the intended effect, I don't think this is fair to you or the PCs.

(my practice is not as hardcore as my theory, however; I don't check PCs rolls because if they want to cheat, that is their problem. I roll in the open to avoid having any temptation to cheat in favor of the players. I change monster HP when  adpating modules to the PC's level, but NEVER after the dice have been rolled. Etc.)

Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 13, 2022, 11:15:35 AM
There is a concept I think should enter the GM lexicon:

"Any sufficiently amusing or entertaining gambit should at least have a fair chance of succeeding."

In other words, if you make me grin or laugh at your audacity, I'll at least let the dice fall where they may.

Agreed! As Moldvay says, "there is always a chance!".

Quote from: Eric Diaz on December 13, 2022, 02:21:32 PM
Other people have made an interesting point:

I think the GM should ALWAYS play fair, but playing fair is part of the social contract.

If balanced encounters, fudging to save the PCs (or key NPCs) and railroading are EXPLICITLY part of the social contract (everyone agreed beforehand), or even if the PC reverts a TPK being sincere ("okay, this encounter was harder than I expect, let us do it again"), that is okay.

We are all consenting adults.

But if you have to lie, misdirect, and cheat to achieve the intended effect, I don't think this is fair to you or the PCs.

(my practice is not as hardcore as my theory, however; I don't check PCs rolls because if they want to cheat, that is their problem. I roll in the open to avoid having any temptation to cheat in favor of the players. I change monster HP when  adpating modules to the PC's level, but NEVER after the dice have been rolled. Etc.)

Depends on how you look at it, I suppose, or where you draw the lines. 

Not only do I avoid illusionism like the plague, I never fudge rolls, either.  I never do any kind of hidden railroad, though I will explicitly tell the players I'm about to put them on rails if they are OK with it, from time to time, mainly when I'm tired and/or haven't had time to prepare properly.  When I put them on the railroad, I'll pull punches by how I run the opposition, as an overt decision, but if the dice hit the table, they stand.

As a player, this is how I prefer to be treated.  I don't like "Nice GM" that is always pulling tricks to make everything work out.  I do like "Rat Bastard" GM that plays scrupulously fair within the parameters laid out. 

Quote from: Eric Diaz on December 13, 2022, 02:21:32 PM
Other people have made an interesting point: or even if the PC reverts a TPK being sincere ("okay, this encounter was harder than I expect, let us do it again"), that is okay.

I've had to do this, actually, a couple of times in my life. Particularly when I'm not entirely comfortable with a new system and just grossly misunderstand how something is going to play out in practice, I don't think it's fair for anyone to just completely trainwreck a game because I screwed up as a GM. I would view part and parcel of fairness is owning up to my mistakes and trying to make right by them.

I never apologize for an encounter.

In my games, my PC's tend to be exceptional. And there is rarely a time where they don't know how deep the shit is when they're in it. They know the risks 90% of the time. When they ARE surprised, this is when they have to put on their big boy pants and deal.

Has it caused TPK's? Yep. But my players are mature enough to know that there is very little in my campaigns that occur "just because" when the chips are down. And there is *always* a chance to win. And many times good planning will cut short *massive* encounters that would otherwise occupy hours of play. It goes both ways.

My last big campaign had a build-up event that took literal *months* for the PC's to explore clues how to find the nest of this Hill Giant-sized Skaven queen... and the point was to lay siege to her warren after gathering up all the allies to fight the hordes, the PC's were to go in and assassinate her during the distraction. Well my players were super-clever, and were able to get into the heart of the warren with *insane* ease, and kill her (while she was birthing hundreds of ratlings!) in front of her giant-rat ogre guards who mistook her being stabbed to death for her birthing pangs. What should have been an all-night slug-fest turned into a 30-minute Silent Assassin kill, and fade out. The culmination of nearly a year's worth of hard-fought gaming, and they put the nail in it nice and tight. They certainly weren't apologizing to me for it. And I was applauding them.

"Fairness" is earned by your players, which comes from being consistent as a GM. Not every player will necessarily feel that way, but that's on them. YOU as the GM set the tone of your setting. Players that like that will stick around.