Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Frozen DM" data-source="post: 2818019" data-attributes="member: 35841">I think I'll concede this point. I do think doing harm is part of the problem, and does probably derail this discussion from the original topic of "minor" cheating to "major" cheating. Let me see if I can get back on topic (hard I know... I ramble)I think I'll use the following as my definition of minor cheating, just so I can try and get my points relevant to the original purpose of the thread: 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. So as something I would consider to be minor cheating: A player, in the midst of a random encounter that has no real bearing on the overall plot or story, will fudge a die roll in order to get a sucessful hit on an opponent, possibly killing the monster 1 round earlier than normal. Not a huge deal in my opinion and has no significant impact on the game.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. 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 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. 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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification