Cheating, Action Points, and Second Wind

[Cadfan]

Yup.

Then next question.

The player knows I've been keeping track of the modifiers on him, so he hasn't been. He's pretty sure I messed up. But he isn't totally sure. He doesn't ask me to recalculate, but he probably would have if I'd erred the other direction, and hit him when he thinks he shouldn't have been hit.

Is HE cheating?

This is how I see "cheating" issues come up in real gameplay. I've only met one or two actual, intentional, knowing and malicious cheaters in my years as a gamer. I've met a lot of people who just kind of... let things slide when they think they're going their way.

 

[buzz]

If you are often cheating (DM or player) to make a little more / less damage to end the fight (or any other rolls) in a way to make a better story, the problem may be that D&D is not the best game for your playstyle.

QFT.

EDIT: Though, I'm reading "cheating" here as "fudging."

 

[buzz]

Is HE cheating?

Knowingly misleading another player in order to better your score/performance in a game is cheating.

 

[LostSoul]

It seems to me that Action Points are in the game specifically to allow the players to cheat.

By that, I mean that when the game says "according to my rules, your character fails at that roll" action points allow the player to say "that's too bad, because I'm spending this action point to succeed at that roll."

But the game also says, "According to my rules, you can spend an action point to succeed at a failed roll." Or whatever.

How is that cheating?

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Knowingly misleading another player in order to better your score/performance in a game is cheating.

That is a good working definition of cheating.

I want to say again that Fine and I both distinguish between cheating and DM fiat. Players can feel cheated if a DM goes against the rules to save their bacon, but the DM is usually encouraged by the game rulebooks to modify outcomes when necessary.

And by the way, I agree that Fine's book is a bit dated. The internet alone has changed the way RPGs are played. Still, I have seen a lot of player cheating in my twenty-five years of gaming (Yikes! Call the grognard wagon!) some of it I cared about, some I didn't. Some cheating is very subtle and some is pretty gross. In most cases I've seen (and this is definitely not a good sample), it has tended to be in circumstances of desperation. Action points, and other mechanics, give a constructive avenue for this desperation. I think this is a good thing, whether or not this desperation would lead to cheating for any given player.

(Cheating is definitely not so nice, though. Heck I knew two brothers who practiced passing their hands over dice so that they could flip them to another side without anyone noticing. I think it worked best with d6s, but they were big Champions players. When they played AD&D (1st Ed), they always had good stats.)

 

[CharlesRyan]

Action Points and similar mechanics don't have anything to do with cheating. They are a basic way to give players a bit of authorial power. . .

I have to agree with buzz. I first encountered the action point concept in TORG, and I was struck at the time by how it gave the players a share of the dramatic control normally exercised only by the GM. It gives the players some (albeit limited) ability to say "in fact, this is what happens," in a way that has nothing to do with cheating.

And I really doubt that such mechanics discourage cheating. People inclined to cheat will not do less of it simply because they started out with more mechanical advantages. Instead, they'll use up those advantages, and then cheat!

 

[marune]

QFT.

EDIT: Though, I'm reading "cheating" here as "fudging."

When I'm playing a challenge-based game like D&D, I don't want the DM to cheat, i.e. making the challenges easier / harder based on his current mood (pity or cruelty).

Of course, some fudging is necessary if the challenges aren't set up right at first. (For example, using a high-CR monster from MM2)

 

[JohnSnow]

I doubt outright cheating is all that common.

But... lets say that I'm the DM, and I have an orc attack a character. That character has been taking a beating. He's down to his last few hit points, and he's got like five negative conditions stacked on him at this point- he's nauseated, frightened, dazzled, cursed, and prone. A lot's been going wrong for this guy.

I roll the attack roll, and get a 24. I look at my notes, and declare a miss.

The player knows that his character's AC is actually 23 at this point. I forgot one of the modifiers from one of the conditions. I knew the condition was there, but I just forgot it when I calculated the hit.

He knows that if he speaks up, his character will probably die.

He keeps quiet.

Is this player cheating?

This is why many DMs roll behind a screen.

In a similar situation, if I, as the DM, "fudge" the roll to let the character live...am I cheating? If I let it hit, and then declare that I rolled "just enough" damage to drop him to 0 hp, am I still cheating?

 

[marune]

This is why many DMs roll behind a screen.

In a similar situation, if I, as the DM, "fudge" the roll to let the character live...am I cheating? If I let it hit, and then declare that I rolled "just enough" damage to drop him to 0 hp, am I still cheating?

IMHO, yes, see above post.

 

[JohnSnow]

IMHO, yes, see above post.

I absolutely agree, and while I, as a DM, will do that from time-to-time, I really, truly dislike the necessity.

I love the action point concept. I think it would probably be best not on a "per-level," "per day," or even per-adventure basis, but rather as a resource available every few encounters.

For example, if we want PCs to be able to pull off something implausible heroic every 4 encounters or so, we should give the PCs enough action points that they can do just that. Something in the way of a rule like this:

"Every level, each PC gets 6 action points. This assumes the PCs will gain a new level every 18 encounters. If you alter the rate of advancement in your game so that characters need to face more (or less) encounters each level, you should correspondingly adjust the number of action points to match."

I love action points. And quite honestly, I can't wait to see the 4th Edition take on them.