Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jim Hague" data-source="post: 2821288" data-attributes="member: 17550">Good luck with getting a straight answer on this one - I asked the very same question upthread and it got lost in the noise.  IMO, cheating by anyone not explicitly authorized to do so is detrimental to the campaign.  If you're playing a game with a randomizer, where using that randomizer entails taking a risk - anything from not hitting, to failinf a skill check to missing that roll vs. dying - you've agreed that you roll the dice and take your chances.  Of course, systems with fudge abilities of one sort or another modify this, but the principle is the same.As for the 'beneficial cheating'...meh.  You're still breaking the rules, and thus the social contract.  What gives the cheater the right to seize that kind of authority, when others don't?  The moral and ethical issues have been dismissed out of hand without any real support for the counterargument by some, and apparently others find it acceptable to break the rules if they feel like it, so where does that leave us?  The suggestion above of using another term for the 'beneficial' cheating has been suggested, but I don't think it covers what's being argued, since most of it seems to hinge on a metagame issue and not the rules themselves (which the term 'cheating' covers nicely).</blockquote>