Cheating - who cares?

[swrushing]

Minor cheating is a case where the player's actions do not upset the harmony of the game (ie isn't blatantly ruining the experience for other players) and where the results of the cheat do not significantly alter the outcome of a challenge, problem or encounter.

Ok. I can buy that.

So as something I would consider to be minor cheating:

OK.

I do find it odd that someone would object to meta-gaming as a reason to perform an action, but would fudge a die roll and see it as more acceptable. In both cases it is the PLAYER using the rules system and their out-of-character knowledge in order to influence their character's actions. I'd say in the above example, this is just as much meta-gaming as deciding to take any other action, it simply compounds the problem by lying about a die roll. But again, I wouldn't consider claiming a worse die result as being cheating anyway.

Actually, i find both the metagaming and the cheating to be of equal disfavor. both are "stepping outside of the rules" to get what I want toi happen. But the metagame, taking an out of character action, is more likely to get noticed, thus more likely to actually draw attention away from the goal, which is to help the other player get the dramatically most appropriate result.

Seeing me, the tactical wizard that i am, suddenly not take the attack... that would raise some eyebrows. Seeing me who is famous for botching rolls miss a kill shot to hit and toss my dice in disgust...again... that would bring laughter and then intent glee at the ranger getting his kill.

But, as others have stated... for some around here... metagaming is acceptable chaeting and fudging the die will get me kicked out first offense.

color me amused.

Yes it would. And this is simply because my players accept that they are playing a game with a system of randomization that can influence actions.

being able to influence the action doesn't equate to "and thuis MUST control them".

Look, practically every modern gaming system has adopted some form of action points for the explicit purpose of allowing players to exert some influence over the die roll. They tacticly or sometimes explicitly admit that at times following the die can be bad and they add a mechanic to allow it. Most modern RPGs tell the Gm to not let the dice be the sole judge jury and executioner and to at times exert his common sense, dramatic sense and so forth.

Well, just because a game doesn't have action dice doen't mean its mechanics are so perfect that the same "problems or harm caused by the dice" don't exist. It just means that there is no formal way to ameliorate them in play.

In this case, cheating is an elimination of the random element for a specific purpose (whether malicious or not).

indeed, and also, for good and for ill, for better results or for worse results.

When a player cheats in order to kill the monster he is saying to the group "I want to be better than you even if I have to break the rules. My personal satisfaction or goals takes precendence over the game, the group and the agreements we made when playing the game". Had he simply killed the beast because of a lucky roll than there is no negative sentiment attached, it was just luck of the roll.

if you consider "so you have more fun" a negative sentiment, you are correct.

sometimes the die does bad things and would be worse for the game if kept. Every action point system out there tacitly or explicitly agrees with this. Why in the world someone would believe this is only true for action point games and that games where "you cannot change the dice" the dice only produce good results is boggling to me. Also why chosing to take the better result wouldbe bad is baffling.

But just to get back to the original thread again. My biggest reason for being against even minor cheating amongst friends is, it creates a situation where it can easily escalate into more severe forms of cheating.

Slippery slope.

Making efficient characters can escalate into excessively maximized abusive characters who disrupt play and fun.

Slippery slope

roleplaying well a dynamic and intriguing character with his own goals and motivations can lead to hogging the spotlight and dominating play, to the detriment of others enjoyment.

if i am against everything which if escalated can produce negative effects and disrupt a game... i am not in favor of much.

Even if minor cheating doesn't cause problems, it's a gateway to worse behaviour. I believe it would be easier for such a player to justify cheating on a larger scale if their minor cheats have been ignored. After all, if fudging a 10 to a 15 is acceptable once a game session, why isn't fudging a 15 to a natural 20? or doing it twice a game session? As I said earlier, slippery slope.

of course, the slippery slope argument is in itself a slippery slope.

how many other good roleplaying habits can you see getting to be a problem or abusive or sidruptive if also carried to the extreme, if escalated, if basically, one simply does them without regard for others enjoyment?

We all say "role play your character" but we all also know that there is a "common sense" limit of "but make it in a way that keeps the game going and fun" and how many times have we heard " i was just playing my character" tagged onto some obnoxious game disruoptive behavior?

You willing to be against "play your character" because if taken too far down its own slippery slope it can be disruptive?

Additionally, and I've seen this happen in my own game, players who are known to fudge dice, are always believed to fudge the dice, even if they don't. There is a level of distrust that eventually develops over time, and it is made worse if the cheating escalates. It annoys me that I now have 1 player in my group who is always under suspicion of cheating, even if he does get lucky. And I think it even ruins his enjoyment of the game a bit since now, when he does score a natural 20, everyone is immediately suspicious. We're all still friends, and he isn't being booted from the game because it still isn't worth losing a friendship over, but it is an annoyance I would be better off without.

like any technique it can be overused or even abused. if its used enough to make it seem constant, its likely overused and wont be effective.

 

[Frozen DM]

But, as others have stated... for some around here... metagaming is acceptable chaeting and fudging the die will get me kicked out first offense.

color me amused.

Well I agree here, in neither case would I consider kicking a player out at first offence (or even after multiple offences). As much as cheating in the game annoys me, I can tolerate it to a limit for the sake of friendship. In fact, it has almost become a running joke in our own game because of how prevalent it became at one time.

Look, practically every modern gaming system has adopted some form of action points for the explicit purpose of allowing players to exert some influence over the die roll. They tacticly or sometimes explicitly admit that at times following the die can be bad and they add a mechanic to allow it. Most modern RPGs tell the Gm to not let the dice be the sole judge jury and executioner and to at times exert his common sense, dramatic sense and so forth.

Well, just because a game doesn't have action dice doen't mean its mechanics are so perfect that the same "problems or harm caused by the dice" don't exist. It just means that there is no formal way to ameliorate them in play.

I definitely agree here. I've seen more games ruined through unlucky die rolls than a single player fudging rolls on occasion. It's one reason I introduced action dice into my own D&D game. Of course, the fact that our group's "accused cheater" never makes us of them still baffles me. Even given a chance to modify rolls through a legal mechanic, and he still chooses to fudge. I just don't understand why.

if you consider "so you have more fun" a negative sentiment, you are correct.

sometimes the die does bad things and would be worse for the game if kept. Every action point system out there tacitly or explicitly agrees with this. Why in the world someone would believe this is only true for action point games and that games where "you cannot change the dice" the dice only produce good results is boggling to me. Also why chosing to take the better result wouldbe bad is baffling.

Again, I do agree that leaving it all up to the dice can result in a bad experience from time to time, that's one reason I adopted action dice in the first place. I can recognize the need to limit the randomness, but still, cheating occurs. I just think that if you agree to play a game, you should play by the rules. Now if the DM establishes a rule that says "Occasional dice fudging is acceptable as long as it enhances the game" well then, that's no longer cheating is it?

if i am against everything which if escalated can produce negative effects and disrupt a game... i am not in favor of much.

LOL true, too much of anything can be a bad thing. I just think there is a difference between working within a set of rules, that ALL players agree to abide by, and one player going out of their way to disregard those rules for their own benefit. And as much as you can argue that there are players that will cheat only for the group's benefit as a whole, I'd be willing to bet that they are in the vast minority.

of course, the slippery slope argument is in itself a slippery slope.

True

how many other good roleplaying habits can you see getting to be a problem or abusive or sidruptive if also carried to the extreme, if escalated, if basically, one simply does them without regard for others enjoyment?

We all say "role play your character" but we all also know that there is a "common sense" limit of "but make it in a way that keeps the game going and fun" and how many times have we heard " i was just playing my character" tagged onto some obnoxious game disruoptive behavior?

You willing to be against "play your character" because if taken too far down its own slippery slope it can be disruptive?

I think like all group activities, each individual must make allowances for the others in the group. One player should never dominate to the exclusion of others, nor should the enjoyment of one person take precendence. I think the main difference between cheating and other behaviours is that cheating inevitably is about one player. Their enjoyment or their goals.

To use another example from my own gaming: Our group was in the middle of a terrible battle with an undead ogre and his necromancer master. The group was being slaughtered, and the end result was almost a TPK. With one exception. The player who fudges die rolls managed to escape. His argument as to why he cheated? Someone had to escape in order to go back to town and recruit new adventurers. In his mind, he was cheating in order to keep the campaign from collapsing. So he justified it by saying he was cheating to benefit the group, so the story could continue and we could keep playing.

Really though, none of us bought that line. We all knew the truth. He wanted to have the only survivor, he wanted to be able to tell the story of how he was the only survivor of a TPK. He didn't cheat for the group, we had accepted the inevitability of the TPK, he cheated for selfish reasons, but he could justify it by saying it was for the group. That was the last session we played in that campaign because everyone was so upset at what he had done. Do we tolerate it? yes, he's still our friend. But do we care? most definitely.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Two things:

1) I voted "care" because I care, not because I'm intolerant. I've put up with cheating before, but it doesn't mean that I don't care. I try to work through it and see what can be done to rectify the situation. I haven't had to kick anyone to the curb yet.

2) While bad rolls can ruin a game more than cheating, it's on the group to deal with that issue. You didn't really all come to play a game that contains such random elements and not expect spectacular failures at times, did you? If you don't like that bad rolls kill your game, fix it (action points have been mentioned, a less random system, DM allowance, etc.). It does not make it okay to cheat.

 

[woodelf]

There was one case of "cheating" years ago, and the Player did it by accident, and we still give him flak (in a friendly rubbing way).

Wow. You're really friendly with your friends. I'm lucky to get any friendly rubbing lately--much less as a result of getting flak over something.

[sorry, just couldn't resist.]

 

[jasper]

ok rushing the steps I have taken to stop cheating as dm and player. Some at the time I thought was nice and trying to correct the problem by in and out game tricks.
1. Narc on the guy. No bob you called red high on your d20(old ones went 0-9) at the being of the session remember. You roll is 8 plus bonuses.
2. Mention to Bob that die is old and rounded and no longer fair.
3. Players roll in open and other players confirm.
4. Bigger dice. Sorry Bob those mini dice can fit on your mini hand.
5. Double check sheets to see if math problem etc.
6. Mention they been very lucky.
7. Confront the player and tell him no cheating.
8. Ignored Bob's rolls and damage. Gee that monster has lot of hitpts. Not nice.
9. The monster can fudge too. Again not Nice.
10. All monsters target bob and do max damage. Again very much not nice.
11. In public at the table tell Bob to quit cheating.
12. If 11 does not work after while I don't allow him at my table.
13. If bob continues to cheat in games other my I leave the table.

All the cheaters I have met and be caught will first lie. Some quit cheating and the game goes on. Sometimes 12 and 13 happens and games goes on.

A lot of people mentioned but he my friend. So just because I game with someone does not mean I have to accept his faults. I have friends I game with but don't go to the movies with. I have friends who I go to the movies with that I don't game with.
And I pass the age where I will tolerate game mates who cheat. I can make more friends and find more mates willing to play the game.

 

[woodelf]

My attitude exactly. If the stakes are high enough for it to be worth cheating, they are too high for cheating to be acceptable.

That's a very good point. On the flipside: what if the stakes are high enough to necessitate cheating?

Let me 'splain: If everyone is at the table for a dramatically-fulfilling story, cheating at the rules portion might be de rigeur [sp?], when it's in service of that goal.

[see my next post for the more-verbose exploration of this idea.]

 

[woodelf]

If there's cheating, then why are we bothering to play this game, again? I'd rather go out and get in more golfing, skiing, etc.

Well, i speak only for myself, but "because the surest way to ruin anything for me is to introduce (or focus on) competitive elements". I used to love tennis. Then i got good enough that people wanted to start keeping score [we'd always score the games, 'cause we saw that as part of the 'rules', not the 'scorekeeping'--need to know when to change serves and so on; but i couldn't have told you who won how many games at the end of the day]. And, more importantly, i couldn't find others who were at the same level who weren't competitive. I basically haven't played since.

So, for me, if by cheating you mean "breaking the rules of the game so that everyone is having more fun" [whether that means you're having more fun, and nobody else is having less fun; or everyone, individually, is having more fun makes no difference to me], then i could care less. If by cheating you mean "breaking the social contract, and doing things that are unacceptable to the rest of the group", then, yes, i find that unacceptable. I just think it's presumptuous to assume that those two situations are linked such that one necessarily implies the other. Not for the way i play.

It's pretty simple - everyone is there at the table to have fun - so long as that fun is not at others' expense. The second you get some jerk who wants to be better than everyone else, who thinks it's ok to violate the trust the other players and GM have pput in them to play fairly, that person needs to go: either for awhile to contemplate their obvious problem with sticking to the agreed upon social contract and rules of the game, or permanently to find another table where the ethical fiber is flexible to soak up their lack of consideration.

I game for fun. Cheating at the table interferes with that, because it's one or more people saying that they're extra-special perfect snowflakes and that my fun doesn't matter.

And what if they're cheating specifically to improve your fun? I'm not sure where the assumption underlying this thread changed from "minor cheating" to "minor cheating that interferes with other people's fun". In fact, i would personally say the criteria of whether or not it is "minor" is precisely whether it interferes with anyone else's enjoyment: if it does, it's not minor.

Here's a hypothetical example: someone else in the party is downed right next to the Big Nasty. So you have your character make a daring dramatic dash into the fray to save them, putting her life on the line. It's a Big Moment, and you know that there's a very real chance you're sacrificing your character, to save someone else's. You've been playing a character that's exactly that sort of person, but you haven't had the opportunity to actually demonstrate it in the game yet. The other player decides to try one last-ditch effort to save himself--something that by all rights shouldn't work. And rolls 3 20s (or something equally amazing), stealing the limelight from your Big Moment that you've been hoping for for however many weeks or months, and turning your Heroic Sacrifice into a Pointless Death. Or, that player cheats (because, while his character doesn't know help is on the way, he does), and says he failed to pull the rabbit out of the hat, letting you save the day.

That's cheating. Assuming the player was subtle about it (so no one knew about the "assist"), would that still be bad? It's the antithesis of acting extra-special or taking away other people's share of fun.

[I suspect this may have occurred occasionally in my current game. The very-skilled powergamer lying about his attack rolls so that the two less-experienced players get to contribute their "fair share", that is. But i don't have any evidence to support this, nor any reason to believe that anyone would care if it were occurring. While people *do* care when the powergamer outshines them through perfectly "legal" means. Our next campaign will be Dust Devils, so that isn't possible.]

Another flavor of cheating that several seem to be overlooking is the type that is specifically in support of the group trust, not in violation of it. Some of us put other elements of the RPG experience ahead of fidelity to the rules. There's exactly one significant time when playing (as opposde to GMing) an RPG that i would've cheated, if i could've. I would've turned an instant-kill critical hit against my arch-nemesis into a non-fatal blow. Maiming, if i could've, but anything but a kill (even a miss) would've been preferable. That hit ruined the campaign for me; i hung on for about 2 more sessions, and then just sorta lost interest, despite a great GM, a generally-fun campaign, and all my friends playing in it. Because what i was getting out of the gaming were some thematic/dramatic/RPing elements that that completely killed for me. In fact, to try and put labels on it: control of my character (in this case, to make sure that he never succeeded in besting his nemesis) was, for me, far more important than consistent capabilities, or being at the same level as the other characters. Taking away my nemesis was as much a violation of the character--moreso, in fact--than taking away my characters abilities or magic items would've been.

Or, to try another stab at codifying my point [i'm sort of working out how to express my point as the thread goes on]: when the rules don't support, or are at odds with, the social contract, cheating may be not only acceptable, but even desirable.

 

[woodelf]

That everyone does it doesn't make it any more acceptable. And since we're speaking of distinctions - cheating is not social lubricant. It's one person violating social contract for their own benefit.

There's a couple of assumptions in there. First, violating the rules might not be violating the social contract. Second, it is possible to cheat in ways that are not for personal gain. Which leads to the point that, without context, there's no way to say whether or not cheating is social lubricant. When you play to well below your actual ability to let a young child win, or merely have a fighting chance at, a competitive game, you're cheating, and you're doing it specifically as social lubricant. [Yes, arguments--good, sound, arguments--can be made that this is not a good thing. It is, nonetheless, a social lubricant.]

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? As much as spotlight hogging, someone acting stupidly or out of character in a game can be as damaging as cheating, if not moreso.

I'll go with "moreso". That is, enabling another player's disruptive behavior is a problem, almost as much so as the disruptive behavior itself. So, preventing the death is bad. I don't see why it's any more bad if done through cheating.

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.

Though i read the example, and the similar situations i've seen personally, as being one where part of the point is that letting the other player know you "let" them get the killing blow would be just as detrimental to their enjoyment as taking it away from them outright.

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.

But does it ruin it any more than if another character had killed the demon before the paladin could enact justice, without any fudging/cheating? It seems to me that the problem here is "stealing the kill", not the means used to get there. It's not really a "counter" example, since it's simply the converse result of exactly the same example.

Yes it would. And this is simply because my players accept that they are playing a game with a system of randomization that can influence actions. In this case, cheating is an elimination of the random element for a specific purpose (whether malicious or not). When a player cheats in order to kill the monster he is saying to the group "I want to be better than you even if I have to break the rules. My personal satisfaction or goals takes precendence over the game, the group and the agreements we made when playing the game". Had he simply killed the beast because of a lucky roll than there is no negative sentiment attached, it was just luck of the roll.

But he still chose to take the hit, knowing the possible/likely outcome. And if he did so specifically in the hopes of a negative impact on the other player, the fact that the dice favored him i don't really see as mitigating the action. Or, to put it another way, if he specifically tries to do something to distress another player, and fails because of the dice, does that mean its ok that he was specifically trying to distress the other player?

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think we're seeing a fairly big playstyle gulf here. Personally, I can't have fun if I know someone is cheating, even if it is in some kind of way trying to make the game better. I'm a big let the dice fall where they may guy. If the dice say I die, I want to die. If the dice lead to something horrible happening, I want that horrible thing to happen. Cheating to avoid such things is going against what I want the game to be.

I find it interesting that others wouldn't find it patronizing if another Player fudged a dice roll so that I could get the kill. If I found out about this or noticed, that kill would then become meaningless. Same for anything else, really. If the results came about because of cheating, then it really doesn't matter, because it wasn't a legitimate result. That could ruin an entire session for me on either side of the DM screen.

So, in my book, cheating can never incrase my fun. I don't even like the DM fudging, but that's another topic.

 

[Jim Hague]

And what if they're cheating specifically to improve your fun? I'm not sure where the assumption underlying this thread changed from "minor cheating" to "minor cheating that interferes with other people's fun". In fact, i would personally say the criteria of whether or not it is "minor" is precisely whether it interferes with anyone else's enjoyment: if it does, it's not minor.

Then I'd suggest playing a game that removes the random element entirely, or one that has provisions for bending the rules to accomodate such a thing - like systems that use Action Points or their equivalent. Such are the games I enjoy the most, because of exactly that element.

Here's a hypothetical example: someone else in the party is downed right next to the Big Nasty. So you have your character make a daring dramatic dash into the fray to save them, putting her life on the line. It's a Big Moment, and you know that there's a very real chance you're sacrificing your character, to save someone else's. You've been playing a character that's exactly that sort of person, but you haven't had the opportunity to actually demonstrate it in the game yet. The other player decides to try one last-ditch effort to save himself--something that by all rights shouldn't work. And rolls 3 20s (or something equally amazing), stealing the limelight from your Big Moment that you've been hoping for for however many weeks or months, and turning your Heroic Sacrifice into a Pointless Death. Or, that player cheats (because, while his character doesn't know help is on the way, he does), and says he failed to pull the rabbit out of the hat, letting you save the day.

Stealing the limelight isn't cheating...but it's rude as hell. It's a different breaking of the social contract. If they cheat to do it, I'd definitely have a word with the GM and ask that they be asked to leave. I wouldn't be comfortable with someone using meta knowledge to 'let me save the day' either - it's a roleplaying game. Play your damn character.

Originally Posted by Jim Hague
That everyone does it doesn't make it any more acceptable. And since we're speaking of distinctions - cheating is not social lubricant. It's one person violating social contract for their own benefit.

There's a couple of assumptions in there. First, violating the rules might not be violating the social contract. Second, it is possible to cheat in ways that are not for personal gain. Which leads to the point that, without context, there's no way to say whether or not cheating is social lubricant. When you play to well below your actual ability to let a young child win, or merely have a fighting chance at, a competitive game, you're cheating, and you're doing it specifically as social lubricant. [Yes, arguments--good, sound, arguments--can be made that this is not a good thing. It is, nonetheless, a social lubricant.]

And if it doesn't violate the social contract, we're talking something else entirely. Social lubricant, if part of the social contract, then becomes allowable. But we're splitting hairs - I can say D&D doesn't allow it, but you can say HeroQuest does, etc. Because the topic is cheating and it's here, my specific case arguments are based on systems with randomization as a factor, where players altering die rolls without some specific means (Action Dice, or whatever) isn't present. Obviously, if those parameters change, then 'cheating' becomes something else entirely - but see the definition I posted upthread, that cheating is specifically violating the rules, be they of the system or in some cases social.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Hague
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? As much as spotlight hogging, someone acting stupidly or out of character in a game can be as damaging as cheating, if not moreso.


I'll go with "moreso". That is, enabling another player's disruptive behavior is a problem, almost as much so as the disruptive behavior itself. So, preventing the death is bad. I don't see why it's any more bad if done through cheating.

It's compounding being a jerk with being dishonest. And I don't think there's anyone here, whether they agree with my take on things or not, that'll back that particular play.