Kwalish Kid
Explorer
Hi everyone, I was just thinking about some RPG issues. Your feedback would be appreciated.
In his 1984 ethnographic study of role-playing games, Gary Alan Fine speaks briefly on cheating. He notes that every player, including himself, cheats from time to time but that, generally, this cheating is overlooked because the cheating assists the players and the overall narrative of the game. He distinguishes player cheating with the ability of the DM to change rules openly or secretly, something that is an acknowledged part of the game. Additionally, he notes that in both of these activities, there is the possibility for gamers to socially punish either cheating players or DMs who make arbitrary rulings (even when supported in doing so by the rulebooks).
I bring this up here because one of the explicit design goals of the recent D&D editions has been to give players more control over their actions. Cheating is one way that, it seems, many player exercise in order to avoid poor rolls or other gaming outcomes that would adversely change the fate of the player's character, the party, or the overall story without appealing to the power of the DM to make arbitrary rulings. Some of the mechanics of 4E seem to me to address the underlying desires that lead to player cheating.
Action points (and the roll a replacement die feats from SAGA edition and 4E previews) seem to be a way to address the real desire of players to have to occasional ability to alter the outcome of die rolls. Depending on the mechanism of the points, players can chose to boost rolls, perhaps after the die is rolled, and have some control over the otherwise completely random roll that they are using to decide that small course of the game. As action points are usually limited, this control is similarly limited, allowing for most of the game to follow the somewhat random course that most gamers find appealing. The use of action points will not replace all kinds of cheating, but will channel some of the desire to cheat elsewhere.
The Second Wind mechanic, which provides every player at least one opportunity to apply some healing to his or her character, is another example of a rule mechanic that may channel the desire of a player to cheat. In most RPGs, most players must rely on a source outside of their control in order to replenish the resource that keeps their character active in the game. The importance of this resource (hit points in D&D) is such that there is a great incentive to cheat on the amount of this resource available to a character, especially if that character is at risk. By giving the player the chance to have some control over this resource, even if only small control, the desire to cheat can be channeled into a use of the Second Wind mechanic.
Finally, I wish to note that while these might be small changes to roll results and hit point totals, the opportunities for cheating do not often allow for great changes, at least not very often. In the end, faced with the socially risky act of cheating or the socially acceptable act of a cheating alternative like these mechanics, most players will opt to stick to the latter.
I doubt that the desire to avoid cheating is entirely behind this rule mechanic. Still, I do think that it is plausible that these mechanics will reduce cheating from the game, thus bringing the game rules closer to the desires of players.
In his 1984 ethnographic study of role-playing games, Gary Alan Fine speaks briefly on cheating. He notes that every player, including himself, cheats from time to time but that, generally, this cheating is overlooked because the cheating assists the players and the overall narrative of the game. He distinguishes player cheating with the ability of the DM to change rules openly or secretly, something that is an acknowledged part of the game. Additionally, he notes that in both of these activities, there is the possibility for gamers to socially punish either cheating players or DMs who make arbitrary rulings (even when supported in doing so by the rulebooks).
I bring this up here because one of the explicit design goals of the recent D&D editions has been to give players more control over their actions. Cheating is one way that, it seems, many player exercise in order to avoid poor rolls or other gaming outcomes that would adversely change the fate of the player's character, the party, or the overall story without appealing to the power of the DM to make arbitrary rulings. Some of the mechanics of 4E seem to me to address the underlying desires that lead to player cheating.
Action points (and the roll a replacement die feats from SAGA edition and 4E previews) seem to be a way to address the real desire of players to have to occasional ability to alter the outcome of die rolls. Depending on the mechanism of the points, players can chose to boost rolls, perhaps after the die is rolled, and have some control over the otherwise completely random roll that they are using to decide that small course of the game. As action points are usually limited, this control is similarly limited, allowing for most of the game to follow the somewhat random course that most gamers find appealing. The use of action points will not replace all kinds of cheating, but will channel some of the desire to cheat elsewhere.
The Second Wind mechanic, which provides every player at least one opportunity to apply some healing to his or her character, is another example of a rule mechanic that may channel the desire of a player to cheat. In most RPGs, most players must rely on a source outside of their control in order to replenish the resource that keeps their character active in the game. The importance of this resource (hit points in D&D) is such that there is a great incentive to cheat on the amount of this resource available to a character, especially if that character is at risk. By giving the player the chance to have some control over this resource, even if only small control, the desire to cheat can be channeled into a use of the Second Wind mechanic.
Finally, I wish to note that while these might be small changes to roll results and hit point totals, the opportunities for cheating do not often allow for great changes, at least not very often. In the end, faced with the socially risky act of cheating or the socially acceptable act of a cheating alternative like these mechanics, most players will opt to stick to the latter.
I doubt that the desire to avoid cheating is entirely behind this rule mechanic. Still, I do think that it is plausible that these mechanics will reduce cheating from the game, thus bringing the game rules closer to the desires of players.
