Cheating cheaters

[Nifft]

No, since they are abiding by the rules of the game the group agreed to play, they are in the right.

Yeah. Social contracts exist, even if they're not usually formalized. Violation of an implicit social contract will be disruptive to the group.

Cheers, -- N

 

[the Jester]

Fair enough, just remember that different people enjoy different amounts of challenge. Some people enjoy having powerful characters who rarely fail. Others enjoy having to fight for every inch. There's no answer to the question "how much challenge is enough?"

That's why there are different gaming groups.

 

[catsclaw227]

I would also point out the other players are actively contemptuous of how she chooses to play. Since they're in the majority at the table, I guess that's alright.

And here's the main difference between my opinion and your opinion.

Cheating is not how someone "chooses to play". In her case, cheating is how she falsifies results. It is NOT a chosen play style.

If someone's kid is going around on his bicycle, keying cars on the street, I sure as hell don't want his family to rationalize it by saying it's how he chooses to ride his bike.

 

[Obryn]

No, since they are abiding by the rules of the game the group agreed to play, they are in the right.

Seriously, I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to figure out.

I've been wondering the same thing for five pages.

-O

 

[Fifth Element]

That's why there are different gaming groups.

That's easy enough to say. But in reality, the tastes of different players will not match up 100%. And what if you can't find a group that shares the majority of your tastes? Or what if there's only one group in your area? Do you accept that you just don't get to play, or do you try to play anyway, with a group that doesn't share your preferences?

Reality and message-board comments often do not mesh.

 

[Fifth Element]

Cheating is not how someone "chooses to play". In her case, cheating is how she falsifies results. It is NOT a chosen play style.

I admit, I'm not using the term "play style" in the typical fashion. I could probably find a better term. But it's really just semantics. Some people consider powergaming to be essentially cheating. If someone designs a really powerful character so that his die rolls don't really matter (he'll succeed regardless), that's basically the same situation.

If someone's kid is going around on his bicycle, keying cars on the street, I sure as hell don't want his family to rationalize it by saying it's how he chooses to ride his bike.

That's a terrible comparison. We're not talking about objective damage. If this girl were LARPing and going around smashing people's mailboxes with her "sword", that would be a good comparison. But there is no objective damage here. The result is that certain things are imagined in a slightly different way than they would have otherwise been imagined. How does that compare to keying cars?

 

[catsclaw227]

I admit, I'm not using the term "play style" in the typical fashion. I could probably find a better term. But it's really just semantics. Some people consider powergaming to be essentially cheating. If someone designs a really powerful character so that his die rolls don't really matter (he'll succeed regardless), that's basically the same situation.

If the table's social contract (and rules) allow for the inclusion of books used in said powergaming, then it isn't cheating. Rolling a 2 and saying it is a 20 is cheating. They are not even close to semantically the same thing.

That's a terrible comparison. We're not talking about objective damage. If this girl were LARPing and going around smashing people's mailboxes with her "sword", that would be a good comparison. But there is no objective damage here. The result is that certain things are imagined in a slightly different way than they would have otherwise been imagined. How does that compare to keying cars?

I should have been clearer. I am not trying to compare the damage done between the two examples. I am stating that an action taken (cheating on dice/keying cars) while performing another action (playing D&D/riding bike) should not be considered "linked" as as simply different variants of the second action.

i.e. cheating on dice while playing D&D isn't a variant play style of D&D any more than keying a car while riding a bike is a variant riding style of cycling.

And it could be argued that objective damage has been done, since the other players have stated that it has affected their game negatively. But... that may be a stretch.

 

[cougent]

Listen, my point is this. In my view, cheating in this context isn't a big deal. It doesn't cause any objective pain to anyone. If I found one of my players was cheating, I'd say "whatever floats your boat". If the other players were bothered by it, I would not only ask the cheater "why do you cheat?", I would also ask the others "why does it bother you?" If it's something you can easily get over, we'd all be better off if you got over it. On either side.

Although I completely disagree with your assessment up until this point it seemed to at least be consistent. "Why make a big deal over something one player does that bothers almost no one" (my paraphrase of all your posts). But now you seem to be crossing your own boundaries and going out of your way to accommodate the cheater with the statement "I would also ask the others "why does it bother you?" If it's something you can easily get over, we'd all be better off if you got over it. On either side." I would personally be extremely offended if a DM asked me to just "go along" with another player cheating and being curious as to "why it bothered me".

It is one thing to hold a belief that it is "no big deal" for yourself, and be OK with the single player cheating you as DM. However to then even suggest to the group (2 or more) that they also should consider it no big deal either seems to be pushing an agenda... a bad agenda IMO on top of that!

Bottom line, in trying to (over) accommodate the cheating player, you would loose a different player instead who believes cheating is just plain WRONG (not a play style). Depending on your group status quo, you could easily loose even more by trying to appease the cheater rather than possibly loosing the cheater by confronting them. In terms of group stability and "fun" that seems counter intuitive to me.



From my perspective as a DM, it would bother me because I host games in my home. If this person will cheat (lie) about something as trivial as a game, what else might they do? Will they smoke in my bathrooms instead of going outside (I am a non-smoker and very sensitive to smoke)? Will they toss in $4 for pizza and claim they put in $10 like all the rest and have us make up the difference? Will a miniature that they really like disappear from my collection one night? Where did that new $40 WotC book go that I just bought? I believe tolerating it is just asking it to escalate, human nature is to continue to push the envelope further and further; not to reach a certain level and be content. I would have to speak directly (and privately) to the player and have it cease or them leave.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

I admit, I'm not using the term "play style" in the typical fashion. I could probably find a better term. But it's really just semantics. Some people consider powergaming to be essentially cheating. If someone designs a really powerful character so that his die rolls don't really matter (he'll succeed regardless), that's basically the same situation.

Brother you are reeeaaacching.

Though I offer the smackdown to munchkinism at my table, if something is in the rules it is by default not cheating to use it. Even using the letter of the rule as opposed to the spirit of the rule isn't cheating as such behavior is often exploiting a loophole. Correcting this kind of thing is the DMs job because designers cannot fix every loophole and many DMs don't want them to. That such loopholes are abused in the game is the fault of weak DMs as much as it is te fault of the munchkins.

Cheating is a direct and deceitful breaking of agreed upon rules....period. Saying "I rolled a 18" when you rolled a 6 is cheating...period.
A player lying about any roll is cheating...period...no matter what the cheater's motivation or psychological state.

Allowing one person to cheat is the most egregious form of favoritism. If the DM allows one player to make up rolls as she goes then why shouldn't every player be allowed to decide their own rolls? If that is the case, then why not have everyone just sit around telling each other stories and drop the pretense of rolling dice?

Too add, I do not care if cheating causes "objective" damage or not. The whole objective versuse subjective damage thing is a red herring. Cheating damages the subjective enjoyment of the game on the part of the DM as well as that of the players willing to play by the rules. That's it. Cheating doesn't have to lead to kicking someone's dog, keying their car, arson, or eating your sister's baby to be wrong. Cheating is wrong. We know it is wrong even when we can't articulate social contract theories in order to intuit the reality that a player cheating at D&D while everyone else at the table is playing by the rules is wrong.



Wyrmshadows

 

[catsclaw227]

From my perspective as a DM, it would bother me because I host games in my home. If this person will cheat (lie) about something as trivial as a game, what else might they do? Will they smoke in my bathrooms instead of going outside (I am a non-smoker and very sensitive to smoke)? Will they toss in $4 for pizza and claim they put in $10 like all the rest and have us make up the difference? Will a miniature that they really like disappear from my collection one night? Where did that new $40 WotC book go that I just bought? I believe tolerating it is just asking it to escalate, human nature is to continue to push the envelope further and further; not to reach a certain level and be content. I would have to speak directly (and privately) to the player and have it cease or them leave.

This is an excellent point, BTW. One that I hadn't considered, yet it seems so obvious now.