Cheating - who cares?

[James Heard]

With a pick-up group...well, hunt around a bit, and I'm sure you'll find all the horror stories you can stomach.

I don't need to hunt around, I can remember plenty. I mean, if someone had played a pick-up game with me in a bad mood once or twice I'm positive I've earned some horror story points myself. Mostly though, it's just a game and I don't feel it's worth stressing out over. If someone becomes consistently or outrageously annoying/disruptive/whatever without having other redeeming qualities then I don't have any problem showing them the door - but I have rather low expectations with people in general in social settings so it's usually hard to engage them unless someone steps right up to plate and throws it in my face. And besides, every time I've tried to implement major constructive changes that would eliminate cheating risks entirely - such as "Hey guys, why don't I do all the die rolling from now on?" I've gotten these horrified looks and accusations of being on a power trip, etc. If the choice is between "live with a little bit of it going on, every so often, because people are human" and "constantly fight about it/stress myself out over making certain that it can't/won't" then I'll take the one that encourages people to bring snacks and not pout.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

"I care."

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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?

How would "hey, my defender killed the dragon" (ire not cheating, following the rules, obeying the dice) be considered giving others their share of the limelight, exactly?

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.

I will admit that I am primarilly referring to cheating in the favor of the concerned charater. If you want to miss so that the Ranger can shine it might be a good idea to slip the GM a note to that effect, but no, I would not boot a player for cheating in that manner. (Happy now Woodelf?) I might pull you aside after the game if I noticed it and ask that you hand me a note that you were doing so, simply so that I know what is going on.

But in my experience most cheaters cheat in their own favor, and have seen players cheating to help others only once or twice. (I have only had two or three really bad cheaters over the years, including the one who quit the game when he got called on it. After a private warning first. He also cheats at wargames. I don't game with him any more.)

The 'I have one healing potion left' cheat however is what I would consider a 'full' cheat, I am of the 'let the dice fall as they may, and the PCs also' school. As DM I even prefer to make my own die rolls out in the open. (My players have finally beaten it into my head that they want me to be able to cheat however...) But I also allow folks to stabilize their characters with Action Points/Good Karma and the like, so it is less likely to end with a dead PC. (And I never, ever, use Bad Karma to prevent the saving of a PCs life.)

The Auld Grump

 

[The Levitator]

Since we use DM Genie, fudging isn't an issue. But I think there are times when it would be nice to give a player a second chance to succeed. So I set up a system that's built into my EXP system. When players earn ad-hoc awards (and I use a ton of them), they can choose between the experience points and a Luck Roll. They can use a luck roll for anything at any time. They can earn 4-5 per session if they wanted to. They don't roll over, so they start each session without any Luck Rolls. I've had this in place for 4 sessions now, and only 1 person took a Luck Roll so far and they didn't use it in the session. I'm not sure that it's going to be used very much with this group as they are all pretty old school, but I like having the option available to anyone who wants to use it.

 

[Felon]

EDIT--Nice weather we're having....

 

[CrimsonWineGlass]

My rule is this:

There are 2 goals to a game, to have fun and to win. Cheating takes away from the fun while increasing the chance that you will win. In D20 systems, there is no true end as there is always another goal, another mission, another flaw to fix. That means there is no "win" or "loose". Cheating is pointless and feel free to cheat yourself, but if it makes it less fun for another player by a single bit, or it if it stops being fun for me, I'll stop it. D&D should be fun for the player AND the DM.

 

[woodelf]

No, it's not reasonable because it's completely useless. There are no effects based on that definition.

So, you actually roll a 5 and miss but you state that you roll a 6, and still miss. You cheated, but it's inconsequential. The cheating must have a noticeable consequence, otherwise a discussion on it is meaningless. 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.

While i would include that in the definition of "minor cheating" i was more thinking of things like 'you actually roll a 10, which would hit, but say it was a 6, which misses, in a situation where the opponent is weak enough that there is no danger of it doing serious (or any) harm to another character due to your flubbed attack'. I'm not thinking of situations where there is no change, but situations where the change is so minor as to be 'inconsequential', that change is not to the cheater's benefit, and that change is not detectable externally (IOW, provided no one else actually saw the die roll, the result doesn't seem anomolous). So, it's not noticable not because it has zero impact, but because the impact is very small and non-anomolous.

Here's a completely bizarre and unrealistic hypothetical example: what if a player in your group had a d20 that had no 15, 16, or 17, instead replacing them with 4, 7, and 11 (thus having two of each of those numbers). Would you consider it cheating if she used that die all the time (irrespective of the situation)? If you never looked at the die, do you think you'd ever even be aware of the change?

I would say that an example of minor cheating would be to claim a critical threat instead of a mere hit. Or, perhaps to save vs. the flesh to stone instead of fail.

See, i think that exceeds the threshhold of "minor"--that's too big of a violation of the rules to be "minor" in my book. Which is probably part of the disagreement.

 

[Tarangil]

Cheating's always been a touchy subject. For my players I choose not to tolerate it. I won't kick them out or anything like that, but they are chastised by their actions with in game uses of "Karma" somewhere down the road. It's never leathal but either embarrasing to the character or detrimental to that persons goal.

As a DM I try not to change my roll outcomes, but I have on occasion reduced certain results in damage that would for example kill a character instantly, and bring him/her down to -7 or -8 instead. Which gives the person a sort of chance of survival, especially if the encounter they've 'died' in was a not a main plot issue.



I had an old DM that once punished a serial cheater by keeping the guy in the negatives for the whole game. We had no Cleric so healing naturally was the only way, and just before he'd get to 0 or 1 he'd drop from the horse, or someones roll of a 1 in combat kept him low. I don't know why the guy never left, it's not like he didn't get the hint for his actions. But he hung around with the false hope that somehow he'd manage to make it to 1.

 

[woodelf]

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 point. Here's my counter-:

How is the GM any more likely to know that the player wants his character to die dramatically--or pointlessly--than another player does? In fact, given the way a lot of groups i've seen play, with the players spending some time collaborating out of GM's earshot (so as to make it easier for the GM to plan challenges and so on without simply countering the PCs' every move), mightn't it be more likely for another player to be aware if a player is ready to let (or cause) a character die?

Why is the GM the only one who is allowed to help make the game better for everyone, when all of the participants are presumably equally skilled and equally smart, more or less? And, why is a player any more likely to expect someone else to save him every time he does something reckless if the players do it a few times, than if the GM does it a few times?

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Good point. Here's my counter-:

How is the GM any more likely to know that the player wants his character to die dramatically--or pointlessly--than another player does? In fact, given the way a lot of groups i've seen play, with the players spending some time collaborating out of GM's earshot (so as to make it easier for the GM to plan challenges and so on without simply countering the PCs' every move), mightn't it be more likely for another player to be aware if a player is ready to let (or cause) a character die?

Why is the GM the only one who is allowed to help make the game better for everyone, when all of the participants are presumably equally skilled and equally smart, more or less? And, why is a player any more likely to expect someone else to save him every time he does something reckless if the players do it a few times, than if the GM does it a few times?

The GM isn't more likely to know this, but it's inconsequential (whether or not a GM is more likely to know what a player wants does not have a bearing on whether or not cheating should be permitted). It is very likely that another player may be more likely to know what another player wants. This doesn't give the player a license to cheat, however. The group as a whole can decide how they want to run the game. If the agreement is implicit, it doesn't excuse cheating, but it does leave a lot of gray area. That's why I don't understand people's reluctance to have open communication in these areas (well, I understand to an extent).

As for your second paragraph, all of those points are covered in a standard D&D game by the rules. The GM is set up as a fascilitator and an arbitrator by the rules. The GM is given much flexibility by the rules. The players are not given this flexibility.

On the other hand, these issues are easily solved:

1) Add house rules that empower players.

2) Add official mechanics that give flexibility to players (i.e. action points).

3) Play a game that has more desirable mechanics built in (such as less randomness or player empowerment).

4) Allow players to cheat (this is really an implicit version of #1).

5) Cheat and hope that you don't get caught. If you do, explain that it was for the greater good.

Any one of those is a viable solution, although the first three are choices that I would prefer.

EDIT: ...and let me add that the final two options were only added because they are possible, not because I advocate them. In fact, I am of the belief that option 5 (cheating to better the game) can have undesired results if the cheater is caught.