Cheating - who cares?

[Drowbane]

It isn't always a simple matter.

I just joined a new group this past month, I don't have any ties with them yet. So if one of them ended up being a cheater, I'd call him on it and if things weren't properly resolved, I wouldn't feel bad leaving the group or encouraging the cheater to do the same.

Back in my highschool group, we were all friends. We played a campaign together for roughly 8 years straight, playing once to three times a week with the occasional 3-day weekend marathon game. In that group we had one guy who cheated constantly. The entire group ended up knowing about it, but we never booted him out or made that big a fuss out of it. The player in question needed for his character to be special, to be a "winner" because he had his own issues he was working out. We, his friends, weren't going to call him out and make him feel like crap over it. He grew out of it, we're all still friends (though spread throughout California and nearby states ). So I voted "don't care".

 

[Piratecat]

Jim, James, swrushing, and everyone else --

Okay, time to step in. No more bickering, please. There's nothing wrong with discussing cheating -- but when you start taking subtle digs at one another and being rude, that's not okay.

So if you're tempted, please take a break from this thread.

 

[Jim Hague]

huh? of course it is. IMX many people would find the negative impacts of "full truth" to be far more damaging and hurtful, and thus less morally acceptable, than little white lies, and don't automatically ascribe to this undebatable theory you have.

There is a VAST WIDE AND REMARKABLE difference between "honesty is the best policy" and "honesty is the only acceptable policy and any violation will be met with the most severe repercussions" which is what "kick the cheaters from the game" and "cheating is totally unacceptable" are saying.

I've already addressed the topic of social lubricant. See my reply upthread for a nice definition of cheating - the cheating being discussed is most assuredly not social lubricant; it's violating the rules to the benefit of someone and the deteriment of others. Go back and re-read what I posted, please - I said it's the best (most ideal) policy, but not necessarily the most expedient.

As i have said, i have no desire to condone or endorse cheating, I do consider "don't cheat" to be the best policy, in a general sense. But that doesn't lead me to the extremes you describe.

What extremes? I advocate removing a potential problem before it becomes an actual social issue, instead of allowing a cheat to end up angering everyone else at the table, including myself. We play games for fun, and I consider that to be fun for as many people as possible - and if someone is not having fun, I do what I can to correct that. If they feel they must cheat to have fun, that's not an acceptable solution to me. They could tak to me, the other players...or even go ask for advice on a messageboard. It's shocking, I know, but communication is pretty vital to a good gaming (which is a social) environment. YMMV.

enjoy your games.

I and my players enjoy the games we participate in quite a bit. Right back atcha - have fun.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Then you're backing off on "Cheating is wrong. AFAIC there isn't much more to it than that. Sure, there are degrees of wrong, but that doesn't ever make it right."?

I'm saying it isn't my place. If I see someone going 5 miles over the speed limit, and I call 911 to report him, I'm actually doing harm instead of good. This is the equivalent of watching another group's game and complaining about someone cheating. It isn't my place. I'm saying the example you give isn't an analogue to cheating and can't be used as such.

You can't actively endorse anything through inaction.

Fine, remove "actively." The point remains unchanged. If the DM lets one player cheat, he now has to let the other players cheat or he's now playing favorites. So, when I cheat, if he calls me on it, I have to wonder why he's letting someone else get away with it.

No, he's saying that it's not worth a fight about it. You can disapprove of something without fighting every battle.

It isn't a battle. It's enforcing the actual rules of the game. Players can't say "I don't feel like taking an AoO from that guy for casting a spell in his threatened area" any more than they can say "I feel like that 1 I rolled should be a 10." It's not about some kind of battle the DM is engaging in! What's the Player going to do? Respond with "Well I can cheat if I want to?"

 

[was]

I care....

 

[Odhanan]

Cheating is wrong. AFAIC there isn't much more to it than that. Sure, there are degrees of wrong, but that doesn't ever make it right.

I utterly agree.

 

[Uder]

I voted 44 times, probably throwing off your results.

But... it was all in good fun.

Do you care?

 

[James Heard]

I voted 44 times, probably throwing off your results.

But... it was all in good fun.

Do you care?

Nope Not important, the internet is just another hobby too.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Well 3 things come to mind here.

1) I don't even know if I would consider that situation you describe to be cheating.
2) Those of us who are against the idea of cheating are most likely (not that I'm going to put words in anyone's mouth) discussing the situation where the cheating is done to gain some sort of advantage.

at this point, cheating has lost meaning for this discussion, if we go with your new definitions.

the whole debate has been some saying cheating is wrong period and others saying if the cheating doesn't hurt its not a serious issue, not a problem.

well, you seem to now what to slip into the definition of cheating not just breaking the rules but also "and doing harm"

its like asking if railroading is always bad and including "causes bad results" in the definition of railroading.

not much sense in discussing whether or not cheating that leads to other bad results is good or bad.

in the other thread, i even used the basketball analogy where certain fouls in basketball require not only the action but the case of "gains an advantage" to be considered a foul to describe the type of "cheating" we are describing as OK. Still got hammered by the hard liners of the "hit the door periond" crowd.

if your view is that cheating that doesn't cause problems isn't cheating, then we are close to agreement.

3) Even considering that the discussion of cheating is not limitied to times where a player fudges die rolls in their own favour (as is the case I would assume most of us are referring to, even the OP... but correct me if I'm wrong), in the situation you present I'm sure there were plenty of actions you could take "legally" in order to accomplish the same goal. I don't know what edition or game that scenario occurred in, but in 3.5 you could have always aided another, held your action or taken a number of different tactics that didn't rely on faking the die roll. And all of these actions can be explained in character.

there was no reason IN CHARACTER for my guy to not just take out the fell beast. My character wanted it dead. My character was in position to kill it. making my character "find a way to not attack and kill" would be metagaming. instead i simply had him miss, when i knew it wouldn't hurt anyone and would likely help someone else.

My counter example would be the following:
In one game the party was hunting down a demon that had previously tortured and maimed one of the PC's (the paladin). When the party confronted the beast melee ensued. On player (someone known to fudge die rolls) realizes the creature is almost dead, and takes a shot. A die roll is fudged, a crit occurs and the creature is dead, right before the paladin would have had a chance to seek justice.

Does it really affect the PC's as a group? The villain is still dead. Does it affect the experience? The wrap up is still nice and neat (demon is dead). I would argue this "minor" fudge ruins the experience for the paladin's player however. Even though it's only one die roll.

Well, let me ask you, is this same situation played out legally BETTER if it wasn't arrived at by cheating? If he had just rolled and succeeded at killing the beast the instant before the paladin gains justice, isn't the same "paladin let down" going to occur? is it any better if the reason your guy gets the shot is that his character is better mazximized than the paladin due to your being more versed with the system... would the paladin be less let down if its just another example of your "surperior character build stepping on his toes AGAIN?
would that make it less of a problem?

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Voluntarily taking a worse result than you're entitled to isn't cheating.

the die roll tells me if i hit and how much damage i do. Not taking those results and choosing to make it up on my own... thats not following the rules of the game.

Also who said anything about instant dismissal. I'm just saying that as a general thing cheating is bad.

others on this and the previous thread.

Could there be some conceivable instances where cheating is better than not cheating?
Sure, but those are the exceptions.

some don't seem to think there are exceptions.

Let's turn this around though, let's say you don't like the player of the ranger (for whatever reason). You know he's having a bad night and wants to kill this monster if for nothing other than the morale boost. It's your turn and you take a swing at the monster, you look at your die and see it's a miss, but just so the other player doesn't get the kill you say "hit" and kill the monster. Is this ok?

NO!!!! BINGO!!!

is it because i fudged the rolol? nope
its because i did it to hurt the other player's enjoyment.

I have no disagreement whatsoever with thos who feel that most of the time cheating is bad but sometimes its not.

my disagreement is with those who consider any cheating bad just because it is cheating, regardless of the results/intents and especially those for whom the immediate answer is "hit the door".