Cheating, Action Points, and Second Wind

[mach1.9pants]

"Legalized cheating". Love that phrase.

OT: yep thats what accountants try to do all the time.
back on topic- I like John Snows idea of APs, I always thought how APs were done in Eberron where not quite right. Having stated the exact amount that these APs should be used per encounter means that it is easier to house rule/modify.
APs are really needed in 3.5 because of the way encounters can quickly go wrong with bad rolls, it is a better system IMO than DM fudging! However I hope that in 4E bad rolls are going to be less of a problem so APs can be used for more dramatic action, rather than reversing a couple of bad will saves that resulted in a PCK or TPK

 

[Stalker0]

First off, Action points by their very definition are NOT cheating. They can't be, because they are defined in the rules.

That's like saying that a spell that grants a player a reroll is cheating. Action points are simply a mechanic that allow players and dms to keep some of the "narrative drive" found in all stories but maintain the randomness of die rolls.


Cheating is always a tricky thing in dnd, because dnd is not a tradtionally competetive game. In general, cheating is frowned upon in games because it gives one side an unfair advantage. But if you have a healthy gaming group, the players are not competiting directly against each other, nor are they competing directly against the Dm.

Everyone is interacting in the story and playing their characters, killing monsters and having fun.

So to me, if a dm fudges a roll to save a player from a run of bad luck that's not cheating, because unless your friends are complete a** holes, they don't want to see each other die. Fun is maintained by all.

However, if a player is fudging a lot to make his character better than everyone else, then he is overshadowing the other players, which is denying fun. That's cheating in my book.

 

[marune]

Cheating is always a tricky thing in dnd, because dnd is not a tradtionally competetive game. In general, cheating is frowned upon in games because it gives one side an unfair advantage. But if you have a healthy gaming group, the players are not competiting directly against each other, nor are they competing directly against the Dm.

I agree that competition between the players is not D&D, because D&D is based on teamwork (that's why we have classes & roles in 4E). However, want it or not, D&D is based on a competition between the players and the DM who is the guy setting up the challenges the players will try to overcome.

I know many groups try to move away from this (fundamental) aspect of D&D, but you can have much more fun embracing it or switching to a RPG that is not built around that idea.

 

[buzz]

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).

Ditto. Then again, I don't want fudging in any game I play.

 

[marune]

Ditto. Then again, I don't want fudging in any game I play.

Thanks, but like I said earlier, fudging can become a necessity when the DM makes error or is faced with the errors of the designers during play.

That is strongly linked to the complexity of the D&D rules. For example, figuring out the appropriate CR for a new monster.

 

[Professor Phobos]

Well, even from the "Challenge Game" perspective (as opposed to the "Interactive Storytelling" one) it is occasionally necessary to fudge; it is part of the GM's job in that school of gaming to produce reasonable challenges.

I'm more of an Interactive Storytelling type myself, but in the off-chance I'm running a Challenge-based game and I find myself slaughtering the PCs because I made my challenge too tough, I'll quietly lower the stats of the enemies or do whatever it takes.

Now, granted, if I'm in a group wholeheartedly in support of the "Be Challenged!" paradigm the line between "Too Hard" and "Challenging" is tough to gauge; in a "Challenging" scenario there is the possibility of defeat. Wouldn't want to erode that.

But on the other hand, you want to ensure the possibility of success- and so you fudge in this particular instance.

 

[Zurai]

So to me, if a dm fudges a roll to save a player from a run of bad luck that's not cheating

It is, though. The rules say that you roll 1d20 and add the BAB to determine the attack roll and compare it against the target's AC to determine if the attack roll hits. If your DM rolls a d20, adds it up, and determines that it was a hit, but decides that he really doesn't want the monster to hit so he spontaneously decides it's a miss instead, that's cheating. Cheating is defined as "To violate rules deliberately, as in a game" and that's exactly what the DM is doing.

Again, I'm not saying it's bad. Too many people see the word "cheating" and their brains translate it to "badwrongevilmustkillKILLKILL!!!!". It's a loaded word. Unload it for the purpose of this discussion. The original poster and his point are talking about the dictionary definition of cheating - violating the rules deliberately - rather than the loaded "all cheaters are evil SOBs that deserve to die" that most people instantly associate with the word.

 

[Professor Phobos]

Ah, but remember that the rules of RPGs are subject to GM authority, interpretation, revision and selective implementation.

We're not playing Monopoly or Risk here; there's a human decision making element in these games for a reason.

 

[DonTadow]

Quite afew times in school, we would have these tests where the teacher would say would be open book. Now, normally when you have a book open during a test its called cheating. With optional rules such as action points or second wind, this is like the teacher saying open book. Still the same playing field. The rules are still balanced and no one is "cheating".

Such an offensive word "cheating". It implies that someone is purposely trying to trick others and bypass the rules. When something is a rule though, it is simply following them.

D and D is agame like no other. People are so quick to want to label "their way" the right way, when there is no right way if you always factor in rule 0.

I ran a really cool module this weekend, one in which the party were to fight through this tower to the top floor they managed to bypass every encounter by using some cunning on the rooftop. At full strength this would make the final battle quite easy and probably not satisfying for the pcs. Luckily the mod contained a time mechanic that could be used against or for the main villian specifically for overwhelming odds in either favor. Did I cheat? Did they cheat with their roof technique. Now, if that's not written in and i put an equalizer in there did i cheat to provide more fun for my game.

I don't think dms can cheat. I don't think of dungeons and dragons as a typical board game with static rule. Every campaign is its own modded game. I don't confirm 20s. As the writer of the game can I cheat at something that I am making. A game with no real static rules. If they did we could play without a DM. Heck there are board games that mimic the dungeons and dragons tabletop, yet we rarely hear about these being replacements for a book and a grid map.

I summise that only players of the game can cheat at dungeons and dragons.

 

[Zurai]

Ah, but remember that the rules of RPGs are subject to GM authority, interpretation, revision and selective implementation.

We're not playing Monopoly or Risk here; there's a human decision making element in these games for a reason.

Correct, but completely irrelevant to the discussion. The rules say X. If you do not do X exactly, by definition, you are cheating. For the purposes of this discussion, cheating is not instantly and irretrievably wrong, because we're using a strict definition of cheating.