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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WhimsyTheFae" data-source="post: 2823117" data-attributes="member: 8964">The GM isn't more likely to know this, but it's inconsequential (whether or not a GM is more likely to know what a player wants does not have a bearing on whether or not cheating should be permitted).  It is very likely that another player may be more likely to know what another player wants.  This doesn't give the player a license to cheat, however.  The group as a whole can decide how they want to run the game.  If the agreement is implicit, it doesn't excuse cheating, but it does leave a lot of gray area.  That's why I don't understand people's reluctance to have open communication in these areas (well, I understand to an extent).As for your second paragraph, all of those points are covered in a standard D&D game by the rules.  The GM is set up as a fascilitator and an arbitrator by the rules.  The GM is given much flexibility by the rules.  The players are not given this flexibility.On the other hand, these issues are easily solved:1) Add house rules that empower players.2) Add official mechanics that give flexibility to players (i.e. action points).3) Play a game that has more desirable mechanics built in (such as less randomness or player empowerment).4) Allow players to cheat (this is really an implicit version of #1).5) Cheat and hope that you don't get caught.  If you do, explain that it was for the greater good.Any one of those is a viable solution, although the first three are choices that I would prefer.EDIT: ...and let me add that the final two options were only added because they are possible, not because I advocate them.  In fact, I am of the belief that option 5 (cheating to better the game) can have undesired results if the cheater is caught.</blockquote>

Verification