Cheating - who cares?

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Ok, first - you need to lay off the antagonistic tone. Obviously, this is a hot button issue with some people, but I see no reason to provoke a flamewar.

I follow up a quote by you in which you go on about how lying on some level is a more serious offense since it is a breaking of trust, and say we can use this linkage by you of lying to get across the differeces, and thats antagonistic?

That everyone does it doesn't make it any more acceptable.

uhh... i would say the fact that everyone does do it is a pretyy sure sign that it is considered more acceptable. if people found it unacceptable, they wouldn't be doing it as much.

Is your position that little white lies aren't more acceptable than big whopper serious stuff lies?

And since we're speaking of distinctions - cheating is not social lubricant. It's one person violating social contract for their own benefit. Please don't try to distort what we're actually speaking of in order to support your already very shaky and antagonistic stance.

Obviously cheating is different than lying in some ways and similar in some. After all, if they weren't similar, you wouldn't have linked them together to try and make your point, right?

Indeed - and cheating compounds the above problems by adding another layer of mistrust and deception to what're already going to be serious problems for any game group. So you're compounding being a jerk with being a cheating jerk.

IMo the ker part is the problem, regardless of how you got there.

Please note that my argument hinges on the damage that cheating can do - what if preventing that death simply leads the hypnothetical player whose character was injured to engage in the same actions that landed him in hot water in the first place?

A lot of hypotheticals there... that heis actions put him at the point, as opposed to say jusy bad die rolls or some other player's actions, and the best one... that the player can only learn from DYING, that the player cannot learn from being near dead.

What if the player in the same boat was saved by a nn-cheating PC. Don't we have the same "cannot learn uz he didn't die doomed to repeat this over and over until you guys just let him friggin' die"???

BTW, as an aside, a dead PC doesn't learn. There is no reason why "his nexct PC" should be wiser in the same circumstances, outside of metagaming, which some consider cheating. So it could be argued that saving his PC gives him a legit chance to LEARN without metagaming.

It's a pretty simple principle - honesty and deserved trust avoids the issue entirely. Surely you're not advocating the position of dishonesty and cheating being preferrable to communication and honesty, are you?

As a general rule NO, but in specific situations, just as lying to friends, sometimes YES.

I would no more say "cheating is better and preferred as a overall case" than i would say "cheating is always bad and the response should be kick them out of my game."

Both are way too absolute and extreme for the not-absolute-black/white world i live in.

What about you? Either of those extremes a position you would endorce?

 

[Rip]

This is a very interesting thread and I'll post my opinion in light of some trouble I might get for saying this. So the person in question is a female? Is she new to the game. I would bet dollars to donuts no female gamers here would do it, but if this girl is new to the game she is in a position with a game that is dominated by males and male testosterone. She is probably playing a female character and probably dosn't want to get her @ss whooped on say..poor rolls. If this is in relation to cheating in that way.
If I were DM and the above was the case, I would let it slide and let her have fun and not have to worry about a character she created getting whooped while others may be fairing well.

 

[James Heard]

Don't care unless everyone makes me care, there's no trust issue because even I trusted anyone I wouldn't make it an issue in a noncompetitive game. If people are being annoying about it, on either side, I'll probably act on it but I care more about everyone having fun that worrying about some silly die rolls or someone fudging their math. Yes, people can be silly about it - but the insidious paranoia and moral outrage concerning cheating that I see in some people is as least as damning if not more so to me.

Hell, I've been known to force everyone at the table to do the rolling for the people to the right of them as a "So everyone's upset about cheating? Let's remove the incentive to cheat, and it's only dice." and everyone got their undies in a huge wad about THAT. Some people have serious, serious issues about their dice. I don't grok it at all.

 

[lukelightning]

I voted "I don't care" but really I care; just not enough to make a big deal about it. Then again, given the sheer number of foul-ups/low rolls/etc. in our game I'd be incredibly surprised if any of us were cheating. "You cheated on your die roll and you still got a two??!?!?"

 

[Aus_Snow]

"You cheated on your die roll and you still got a two??!?!?"

Um well. . . I actually rolled a 1.

 

[Jim Hague]

I follow up a quote by you in which you go on about how lying on some level is a more serious offense since it is a breaking of trust, and say we can use this linkage by you of lying to get across the differeces, and thats antagonistic?

The tone is very clearly so, yes.

uhh... i would say the fact that everyone does do it is a pretyy sure sign that it is considered more acceptable. if people found it unacceptable, they wouldn't be doing it as much.

Let me clarify, since you seem to miss the point - it is not morally acceptable, and doing so is an moral failing. That's pretty well accepted in the Western mode of thought, thus not really subject to debate.

Is your position that little white lies aren't more acceptable than big whopper serious stuff lies?

'Honesty is the best policy,' I believe. It may not be the most expedient policy, but it does wonders to avoid trouble down the road when combined with communication.

Obviously cheating is different than lying in some ways and similar in some. After all, if they weren't similar, you wouldn't have linked them together to try and make your point, right?

They're both based in dishonesty, thus being morally and ethically suspect, yes.

A lot of hypotheticals there... that heis actions put him at the point, as opposed to say jusy bad die rolls or some other player's actions, and the best one... that the player can only learn from DYING, that the player cannot learn from being near dead.

I offered another hypothesis to the one you presented. And it would be the character nearly dying or being dead, I hope, not the player.

What if the player in the same boat was saved by a nn-cheating PC. Don't we have the same "cannot learn uz he didn't die doomed to repeat this over and over until you guys just let him friggin' die"???

BTW, as an aside, a dead PC doesn't learn. There is no reason why "his nexct PC" should be wiser in the same circumstances, outside of metagaming, which some consider cheating. So it could be argued that saving his PC gives him a legit chance to LEARN without metagaming.

When I speak of actions leading to disruption of the group, we're talking basic behaviors that have nothing to do with metagaming - running far ahead of the party and provoking encounters to the detriment of the group, playing 'lone wolf' characters in group-oriented campaigns, etc. Those are player behaviors, and if they lose their supposedly valued playing piece engaging in disruptive behavior, it's best for them to learn from the experience.

As a general rule NO, but in specific situations, just as lying to friends, sometimes YES.

I would no more say "cheating is better and preferred as a overall case" than i would say "cheating is always bad and the response should be kick them out of my game."

Both are way too absolute and extreme for the not-absolute-black/white world i live in.

What about you? Either of those extremes a position you would endorce?

Well, as paralogic goes, that's still a weak argument - you have yet to provide evidence that supports a situation where being dishonest, be it by fiddling with your character sheet, cheating on die rolls, metagaming, is something that's acceptable. You keep falling back on social lubricant arguments (the 'little white lie'), when the issue is nothing of the sort. We're speaking violation of social contract, violation of trust and disruptive, damaging behavior at the game table that leads to other people not having fun. That's the opposite of social lubricant, diplomacy and manners - it's selfish, unsupportable behavior at the expense of others. And no, I don't abide that.

 

[EricNoah]

If it happens all I hope is that they aren't blatant about it.

 

[Nail]

I voted "Don't Care".

Given: the poll asks "minor cheating among friends". If the circumstances are different, my response would be different.

 

[iwatt]

I would no more say "cheating is better and preferred as a overall case" than i would say "cheating is always bad and the response should be kick them out of my game."

Both are way too absolute and extreme for the not-absolute-black/white world i live in.

What about you? Either of those extremes a position you would endorce?

Thx swrushing, I thought I was alone here.

I think you and I share the same position here. By the way I don't see this direct connection between trust and friendship. I can be a friend with someone I don't completely trust. Because truth be told, you can never be sure about somebody. I choose my friends based on a simple criteria: are they fun to be around. Maybe this difference explains my tolerance? If some friend lies to me, I won't trust them anymore. doesn't mean I'll stop been friends with him. I'll also give him the chance to regain my trust.

There seems to be some confusion on that point by the OP.

Jim Hague: I thought I'd been clear in my early posts: I'm not defending cheating that breaks the game. I'm not defending cheating to hog the limelight. I'm defending those small little cheating things like:

The player has had a paticular long run of bad rolls, and he misses the target AC by 1 or 2 points. Fudge is OK. Action points definitively help her, and that's why I recently introduced them. there's nothing lamer than a kickass fighter who can't kick some ass.

The PC is part of a long campaign, and during a non-pivotal battle the DM rolled two critical hits in a row, his character goes from full hitpoints to -11. If the player fudges and marks down -9hp, it's alright by me.

 

[iwatt]

Let me clarify, since you seem to miss the point - it is not morally acceptable, and doing so is an moral failing. That's pretty well accepted in the Western mode of thought, thus not really subject to debate.

Did I miss something? This thread is actually debating if it's aceeptable to cheat. And what tolerance people have for it. Apparently you have zero tolerance for it, but at least myself and others do feel there is certain amount we're willing to live with.