Cheating - who cares?

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

The reason you're not getting much of a response here, is because most people don't consider it cheating.

But, it is.

Not to be too coy but even Jim Hague and I who seem on nigh totally opposite ends of this discussion agree on what cheating is.

It is a willful, deliberate choice to not play by the rules, to violate the rules of the game.

The D20 rules don't say "if you fail to make the needed difficulty, you fail and if you make or exceed the difficulty you can succeed or fail your choice"

They say..." If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage."

Choosing to roll the dice and then not following the die roll result is cheating.
Choosing to have one more potion of healing than i was supposed to, is cheating.

In my group for example, you can always take the number you rolled or worse (if for some reason you want to).

then you have a house rule which says some die alterations aren;t cheating. just like when we discuss cheating we aren't lumping action dice systems where you have a legal way to adjust your dice in your favor, we also aren't discussing your house rule.

We are discussing cheating, ie altering results in ways not permitted by the rules.

More appropriately, the die you rolled had nothing to do with the result you got - most DM's allow you to voluntarily miss- therefore you keep calling this cheating, but by most people's definition and view it isn't.

many, maybe most, GMs play with action point systems so that rerolling the die or adding 1-6 pts to a result is allowed and legal.
Does that mean doing so in games without actions points is not to be considered cheating?

Again, for emphasis, when any of us are talking cheating, i think it goes without saying that IF THE GAME BEING PLAYED has a rule which allows the change (like say action dice or take lower), then it isn't cheating.

By definition, cheating is a violation of the rules of the game being played.

Now had you felt it was more appropriate for you to hit, you rolled a miss and, without discussing it with the group, you announce a hit - that's more in line with this discussion.

no thats limiting the discussion to only one side.

This is like asking "is railroading bad" and then trying to define railroading with "and its bad" as part of the definition.

Now this is a different situtation. A character is alive, but for your healing potion that you don't really have. Frankly, If I were the player of the character and I knew what you did, I wouldn't feel very good about it. Now if you told the DM "hey, I technically used my last healing potion, but this is a stupid death - why don't we have a minor fate intervention, I dig around my pack and find another potion." and the DM agrees, then it's dramatic license.

Was what I did cheating? it was violating the rules. it wasn't done to steal his limelight or make my character more powerful. Was it cheating by your definition?

the other options you present are more likely to harm the game. There are simply some cases where its better you don't tell them. As a GM, whenever i decide to lessen an encounter, i don't stop the game and go "hey, since you guys are such wussies, i am lowering the number of orcs in the next room." I do it and never tell them.

A campaign i played in with a less than skillful Gm saw numerous cases where he simply overmatched the party and halfway thru had the bad guys start doing stupid stuff so we survived. frankly, it was overt and obvious. At least once, when a PC was surely about to die, he basically had the dragon spend a full round action to turn around, out in the open, so it didn't take a full attack salvo against the PC.

These were blatent and overt (to the experienced players he had) "saves". This led to some of those players who noticed losing a bit of respect for the game, expressed by being less willing to plan for things and being more vocal about "lets just go ahead and rush in, it will all work out ok" kind of "reasoning".

it would have been better if he had simply altered the scene or skewed some dice rolls or anything more subtle than that.

Obviously, Gms are allowed to "cheat" but the point is they also show that when they d so, its often better the others don't know.

that principle, often "the less the others know, the better" also applies to player cheating.

If i stop the game, go to out of character debate phase as to "can i have an extra healing potion so MoMo here doesn't die? is this a good death or a stupid one?" etc thats a lot more disruptive to the game flow than if i just on my own say "my last healing potion. hope you are worth it?" with an in character sneer.

The latter doesn't break the game pacing, doesn't drive us to out-of-character debate, and doesn't make the player whose character is getting saved any sense of "well i should be dead but they mulliganned me."

After all, its not like i cheated, gave him the potion i didn't have, and then told them all about it.

On a different note:
I think the big problem with this thread is that there are many degrees of cheating and the word "cheating" does not differentiate between them - people need to recognize that tollerance of the different degrees is going to vary - and not get quite so heated about it.

Thats actually been my point.

CHEATING is a thing you do. its violating the rules. At the risk if rasising IRE, consider it a tool or a technique. It is controversial, and so should be used wisely and cautiously if at all.

Cheating produces results. Some results are good. Some results are bad.

it can be used to produce bad results: making ME ME ME more powerful. Stealing your limelight. Being a disruptive jerk. etc.

it can also be used to produce good things: like giving spotlight to others for better "dramatic sense" or to save characters from "bad" deaths and so on.

The opposite side SEEMS TO believe cheating is bad in and of itself, regardless of results.

those seem clear cut sides.

The waffly middle-grounders seem to be those who want to take our "cheating for good results" and redefine them as "not cheating" so that the only thing left under the cheating definition-umbrella are cheating uses which produce bad results.

its like trying to answer "is hot soup good" by defining "hot" as "too hot to be good"

 

[Aus_Snow]

At the heart of RPGs is people sitting around telling stories

I think many roleplayers would disagree with that assertion, but it's not the first time I've heard it online, and it seems there are a fair few believers in it.

I know roleplayers of my acquantance who played in extensive ruleless games. You can be a storytelling type of player without going ruleless; you just put more demand on the story than winning or roleplaying your character.

Of course. Yes.

In the case of the person who scrubbed a roll to let his friend get the kill, a full-on storyteller could have just refused the shot, but the character actor in him apparently forced him do it in some out-of-character fashion. A storytelling group might have let him take the shot in character but let the player openly flub it.

Sure, fair enough. To each their own.


None of that directly answered the questions I was asking, though. Which is cool, I'm not fussed if you don't wish to do that. Just thought I'd mention it anyway, in case anyone felt like having a go at doing so.

 

[Mort]

Ok, se we have the argument - cheating is ok if it's done for the benefit of the group and/or the campaign, fun etc.

My question is: Except for the DM who is given the right to decide what's best for the campaign (for better or worse, the DM may be totally wrong and nobody has fun, but that's a different issue), who are you or I to decide when breaking the rules is best for everyone else?

In the "miracle potion" example - what if the player is about to accept the character dying and you save him from that death. The player, later, finds out you cheated to do so - Is he really happier. Let's say the player never finds out - but now becomes a risk taking idiot because he expects someone to always save his bacon before he dies - is this a better result?

 

[swrushing]

And, as Mort (and probably others) points out, most people will consider cheating to be negative action and not a positive one. So, if you don't use it for gain or for some negative effect, it's not cheating. If you want to say that you cheat in someone else's favor for no benefit of your own, try to use a different word or start a different thread because those are definitely not the same concepts. Unfortunately, your definition explicitly removes all negative factors and changes the thread topic.

Actually, YOUR definition makes the thread pointless.

If we limit the very definition of thw word cheating to include "must have bad results or negative consequences in addition to the act of violating the rules itself" then the question of is cheating ever acceptable or "should you care about cheating" become one sided non-issues.

There was a thread in which the question "is railroading always bad" was asked and by page two the definition some people wanted for railroading was "doing ABC in such a way that it causes bad results."

Cheating is a willful violation of the rules of the game.

That definition leads to this being a discussion.

That definition leads to Jim Hague apparently seeing the intrinsic harm caused by the violation of trust to outweigh any of the ptoential positive uses, a "cure is worse than the disease" notion and thus have a reasoned opinion as to why the answer is "never cheat". I don't agree with him, but i at least can see reason in his position.

That definition leads to me not seeing it as outweighing all of the potential uses and seeing it literally as a technique, one which has some negative issues associated with it but which sometimes can be used well and for benefit of the game. I will leave others to determine for themselves whether it is "reasoned".

Come along four pahes in and redefine cheating as "must also carry other bad consewuences" and you undermine both of our positions by removing the reasoned part, the judgement part, and simply making it an axiom, a matter of fact, a definition, turning the debate into... less than itwas and thats saying something.

In summary...

if one assumes the definition of cheating to include not only "willful violation of the rules" but also "for personal gain or harm to other participants in terms of consequences beyond the violation of rules itself" then I whole heartily agree cheating is bad and should likely be cared about much so.

if you are one who goes with the above definition, what do you call the "got one more healing potion" technique or the "i missed, guess you will have to kill him" technique when the game rules do not allow such? What is the definition for "violated the rules but for someone else?" you would rather we use?

In contrast, if one assumes cheating by definition to include only "willful violation of the rules", then cheating can be bad or not, can produce bad results or not, and can even produce good results and should be judged and evaluated based on those results.

 

[Jim Hague]

Ok, se we have the argument - cheating is ok if it's done for the benefit of the group and/or the campaign, fun etc.

My question is: Except for the DM who is given the right to decide what's best for the campaign (for better or worse, the DM may be totally wrong and nobody has fun, but that's a different issue), who are you or I to decide when breaking the rules is best for everyone else?

In the "miracle potion" example - what if the player is about to accept the character dying and you save him from that death. The player, later, finds out you cheated to do so - Is he really happier. Let's say the player never finds out - but now becomes a risk taking idiot because he expects someone to always save his bacon before he dies - is this a better result?

Good luck with getting a straight answer on this one - I asked the very same question upthread and it got lost in the noise.

IMO, cheating by anyone not explicitly authorized to do so is detrimental to the campaign. If you're playing a game with a randomizer, where using that randomizer entails taking a risk - anything from not hitting, to failinf a skill check to missing that roll vs. dying - you've agreed that you roll the dice and take your chances. Of course, systems with fudge abilities of one sort or another modify this, but the principle is the same.

As for the 'beneficial cheating'...meh. You're still breaking the rules, and thus the social contract. What gives the cheater the right to seize that kind of authority, when others don't? The moral and ethical issues have been dismissed out of hand without any real support for the counterargument by some, and apparently others find it acceptable to break the rules if they feel like it, so where does that leave us? The suggestion above of using another term for the 'beneficial' cheating has been suggested, but I don't think it covers what's being argued, since most of it seems to hinge on a metagame issue and not the rules themselves (which the term 'cheating' covers nicely).

 

[Mort]

In contrast, if one assumes cheating by definition to include only "willful violation of the rules", then cheating can be bad or not, can produce bad results or not, and can even produce good results and should be judged and evaluated based on those results.

Just to be clear, I'm perfectly comfortable with this defintition - and I still find that cheating is bad - good result, bad result, indiferent result.

The relationship between the gamers at the table is one of trust. If I cheat (for whatever reason) I have violated that trust, and the relationship will be lessoned in the future - which can limit the fun of my fellow players.

And yes even if my cheating was "positive" - that still means players may trust me less in the future, which once again makes things less fun.

 

[rgard]

<SNIP>

In a competition, its cheating
Among friends, its lying

A proud member of Certified Gamers Allaince

Feegle Out

Well said.

 

[swrushing]

Ok, se we have the argument - cheating is ok if it's done for the benefit of the group and/or the campaign, fun etc.

I would say "can be" not a definite "is".

My question is: Except for the DM who is given the right to decide what's best for the campaign (for better or worse, the DM may be totally wrong and nobody has fun, but that's a different issue), who are you or I to decide when breaking the rules is best for everyone else?

A player. Who else is involved? you ruled out the GM.

In the "miracle potion" example - what if the player is about to accept the character dying and you save him from that death. The player, later, finds out you cheated to do so - Is he really happier. Let's say the player never finds out - but now becomes a risk taking idiot because he expects someone to always save his bacon before he dies - is this a better result?

"What if the player is about to accept the character dying?" huh?

you thinking maybe he wanted to die, this was his paln, and now i have robber him of his dramatic "reached -10 now dead" moment of glory?

those kind of things happen a lot in your games?

What if an eccentric billionaire right before the sesion told him secrtely "if your PC dies i will give you a million dolloar but dont tell anyone."

man, i would feel bad then too.

gosh.

What if, like a great many dead PCs (arguably the vast majority) in DND it happened mostly not by plan and decision and deliberation of good story but because the Gm was overmatching the encounter (again), the die rolls went bad, etc. and it was just going to be another pointless dead PC thing?

Also, the risk taking mad fool thing is a hoot. becuase i had "one last healing potion" to save him "this time" suddenly the player goes insane, cannot use good judgement, and forever after loses all fear of death? Wow!! Thats one heck of a potion.

becuase he didn't have his character die, but only came very close, he cannot learn from his mistakes? (assuming there were some.) Only in PC death can he learn about risk?

I have heard it before.. spare the PC spoil the player.

poppycock.

jibberjabber

IMX dead PCs teach the players... to not care about their PCs.
Nearly dead PCs teach the players... that this is risky so be careful, next time you might not be so lucky.
moreover, the nearly dead PC has REASON to be more careful next time..he was there and saw how bad it was. he actually learned. The guy whose character dies but whose next PC somehow miraculously knows to be more careful... there is a word for carrying knowledge from one PC to another without a reason why... met... metag... arrghh... give me time, it will come to me...

As for "what if he finds out later" DUH!!!

A Gm is allowed to cheat, its legal, he can have monsters miss, renumber the orcs in the next room and otherwise change encounters on the fly to make his game run better... and if he told the players about it when he did it it would NOT BE A GOOD THING.

Some with my extra potion. It would be a bad thing to tell him about it. just like the GM fudging above, telling about it would hurt. That doesn't make the initial act right or wrong.

metha... wait what i got it... the word i was looking for is megalopolis!!!
no wait, that doesn't look right... megat... metag...
let me get back to you on that.

 

[ThirdWizard]

So, out of curiousity, when *i* cheated by having my PC Defender's successful roll to hit be called a "miss" so that the PC ranger character next in line got the kill on the dragon, which seemed more dramatically appropriate, how exactly was i stealing the "moment to shine" from someone else?

For the record, as far as I'm concerned, that was a horrible thing to do. It's patronizing. You're giving him his victories. If he found out about it and put 2 and 2 together, he might start wondering why you feel the need to cheat in order for him to have his moment. That's a lack of respect.

And secondly it makes the victory not really his. It was given to him. It was a hand out. If the DM had fudged so that the same thing happened, I would consider that bad form as well. Does no one want to actually succeed on their own merits anymore?

How would "hey, i have one healing potion left" when i didn't and pouring that potion down an "about to be dead, really dead" PC's throat be robbing him of his chance to shine? Sure, I am robbing him of his chance to be dead, to be gone, to be "end of story" and the player of his to need to dig up a replacement character when next the opportunity to meet up with one comes up. But, thats not what I generally refer to as his "chance to shine". its more the exact opposite, in fact, the "anti-shine" moment.

That's even worse. Now you're making other players cheat? At least keep your cheating to yourself. If someone cheated to save my character I'd ask the DM to give my character an immediate heart attack or, barring that, have the PC leave to do something else. That is seriously not cool and I would be pretty upset.

 

[antman120]

Origanally posted by Jim H
It's one person violating social contract for their own benefit...

Friendship is not a contract between people and should not be treated like one. Everyone lies, everyone cheats. If it doesn't hurt the relationship then let it go. And if you need a set of rules to be friends with someone maybe you need to look at your own relationships.