jmucchiello
Hero
We do it in our games. Don't you want to defeat the BBEG when he's brought his A-game? Otherwise the bards make fun of how you defeated Terrible Tim the Enchanter while he was on the pot reading a copy of Elves' Digest.Barak said:
What is cheating?
- Thread starter Oryan77
- Start date
That's just weird to me.
If your DM happens to be good at tactics, but terrible at political machinations, do you help him out with those too? "Man the Evil Baron Nickeldink would really benefit from paying off Neutral Merchant LikesMoneyALot to sell my wizard a cursed headband of intellect, and then sending assassins after him that night!"
If your DM happens to be good at tactics, but terrible at political machinations, do you help him out with those too? "Man the Evil Baron Nickeldink would really benefit from paying off Neutral Merchant LikesMoneyALot to sell my wizard a cursed headband of intellect, and then sending assassins after him that night!"
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Getting back to the original question of cheating, for me it's a matter of intent. If someone does something with the INTENT to have a net positive or break the social contract for themselves, be it to gain a benefit/not get a penalty/hurt something else/etc., that's cheating.
By this definition a DM can cheat. A DM can also do things like fudge numbers and not be cheating - if they're doing it to make the game stronger instead of personal benefit. A player can't do that because fudging the rules is something is not in the player arena, and breaks the social contract. (This doesn't mean the player can't suggest to the DM a way to make the game better against the roles - that's fine.)
Cheers,
=Blue
By this definition a DM can cheat. A DM can also do things like fudge numbers and not be cheating - if they're doing it to make the game stronger instead of personal benefit. A player can't do that because fudging the rules is something is not in the player arena, and breaks the social contract. (This doesn't mean the player can't suggest to the DM a way to make the game better against the roles - that's fine.)
Cheers,
=Blue
False Assumptions
The premisce is often skewed: players are NOT their characters. As a matter of fact, unless a player operates at genius level, most RPGers would need a crew of writers to perform and speak as their 18 Cha Bard, or fire off history and the like as their 18 or 20 or 22 Int Wiz might do...
Give the players a break, since they are XXIst Century people in a living room or a basement.
Trust me when I say that the adventurers would at least know as much about their world as we do. Unless the monster is a one-of-a-kind, nonesuch, never seen before, someone has documented events, traits, characteristics, stories, ancient battles and clashes, magicks and any other relevant info.
Of course, if the uncouth, unwashed Barbarian tells us the demon or devil is immune to such and such, it may be off-target, UNLESS the Barb's tribe has many kills for or agaisnt such creatures.
Reporting false die results is cheating. Reading the DM's notes or module is cheating. Dousing the DM in butane and threatening him with a match in exchange of XP, items or the like is cheating. Buying him a Double Whopper from Burger King as a bribe 'cause he likes such fare, that's political science at work !
The premisce is often skewed: players are NOT their characters. As a matter of fact, unless a player operates at genius level, most RPGers would need a crew of writers to perform and speak as their 18 Cha Bard, or fire off history and the like as their 18 or 20 or 22 Int Wiz might do...
Give the players a break, since they are XXIst Century people in a living room or a basement.
Trust me when I say that the adventurers would at least know as much about their world as we do. Unless the monster is a one-of-a-kind, nonesuch, never seen before, someone has documented events, traits, characteristics, stories, ancient battles and clashes, magicks and any other relevant info.
Of course, if the uncouth, unwashed Barbarian tells us the demon or devil is immune to such and such, it may be off-target, UNLESS the Barb's tribe has many kills for or agaisnt such creatures.
Reporting false die results is cheating. Reading the DM's notes or module is cheating. Dousing the DM in butane and threatening him with a match in exchange of XP, items or the like is cheating. Buying him a Double Whopper from Burger King as a bribe 'cause he likes such fare, that's political science at work !
Last edited:
shilsen
Adventurer
For me, yes. I tell the DM when he makes a rules error that hurts the PCs and I tell the DM when he makes a rules error that helps the PCs. Similarly, as DM, I remind players when they forget things, whether they hurt the PCs or not. I'm not interested in a DM vs. players game, whichever side of the DM screen I'm on.Barak said:
Barak said:
I absolutely would. If I can help my DM run a game which he thinks is more successful and which I'll enjoy more (and I do enjoy political machinations), isn't that a good thing? I've discussed ideas with DMs which would, by most definitions, be defined as screwing over my PC. I've also sent a DM statted out NPCs that he could use against my PC and the others.
So, did I blow your mind yet
?
Oryan77
Adventurer
How is it a tactical decision when you forget that a large creature doesn't need to move up to attack because he has a 10' reach? That's a slip of the rules, not a bad strategic decision. Telling the DM, "You should move in this square so you can get a flank bonus" is completely different then reminding the DM "You know you don't need to move into that square to attack because he has a 10' reach, remember?"Barak said:
As someone just said (and I actually hate this quote), "you aren't your PC". Well, as a DM, I'm not my NPC's. I can't be expected to remember every rule & NPC ability 100% of the time.
Obviously you have never been a DM. And if you have, you've never been a long term DM because you would appreciate players pointing out a rule even if it's not in their favor. Or maybe I'm completely wrong and you are an ace when it comes to running your 2 clerics, 1 wizard, 1 Iron Golem, 5 ghoul henchmen, and the Lich master-mind all in the same encounter against the PC's. Most of us are human, and I appreciate when my players remind me of something I've forgotten whether it's in or out of their favor. I'm always helping them out when they forget something. Then again, I don't play D&D with a Player vs DM mentality.
I look at it like playing checkers. A player not pointing out a rule I overlooked is the same as me forgetting it's my move, so I tell him to hurry and move his checker piece and he giggles and moves; hoping I won't notice that he moved twice in a row.
Alright, I'm answering multiple people here.
Rules error, absolutely. As a player, I always pointed out rules error. To the point that it has annoyed DMs before. And it sure has annoyed the more "competitive" players.
Tactical decisions? No.
To a degree, I qualify as "tactician" in that weird chart that tracks what kind of player you are. I -do- enjoy roleplaying, quite a bit. But when combat breaks out, I look for tactical advantages. I do -not- view the game as player against DM. I -do- understand that the DM is, in the end, an arbiter. At the same time, I'm a much better tactician than most DMs I've played under. Does that mean I should just take over combats entirely? I don't think so.
On the other hand, despite oryan77's beliefs, I mostly DM. Yet, it would be a major pain if the players always pointed out "tactical errors" to me. Why? Because not all of my NPCs/monsters always do the best thing. Dragons, liches, Powerful wizards? Well yes they do. But Golems, mindless undeads, goblins, dumb thugs, etc? Well no. They have their own mindset, their own way of acting in combat. It's not always the most tactically sound actions, but it's what they'd -do-. And a player constantly pointing out that fact would annoy me. To a degree, that is why I do not point out everything to the DMs either.
Rule errors? Sure. Tactical decisions? No.
shilsen said:
Rules error, absolutely. As a player, I always pointed out rules error. To the point that it has annoyed DMs before. And it sure has annoyed the more "competitive" players.
Tactical decisions? No.
To a degree, I qualify as "tactician" in that weird chart that tracks what kind of player you are. I -do- enjoy roleplaying, quite a bit. But when combat breaks out, I look for tactical advantages. I do -not- view the game as player against DM. I -do- understand that the DM is, in the end, an arbiter. At the same time, I'm a much better tactician than most DMs I've played under. Does that mean I should just take over combats entirely? I don't think so.
On the other hand, despite oryan77's beliefs, I mostly DM. Yet, it would be a major pain if the players always pointed out "tactical errors" to me. Why? Because not all of my NPCs/monsters always do the best thing. Dragons, liches, Powerful wizards? Well yes they do. But Golems, mindless undeads, goblins, dumb thugs, etc? Well no. They have their own mindset, their own way of acting in combat. It's not always the most tactically sound actions, but it's what they'd -do-. And a player constantly pointing out that fact would annoy me. To a degree, that is why I do not point out everything to the DMs either.
Rule errors? Sure. Tactical decisions? No.
The Shaman
First Post
So, when Normand fragged himself with his own grenade, that was a tactical decision?Barak said:
Don't let him kid you, folks - Barak is an excellent roleplayer as well.
Amusingly, when I wrote that, I -did- think of you.
Let me clarify, I meant every DM I played under IRL. PBPs, by their very nature, tend not to lend themselves well to tactical play. Therefore, it's hard for me to judge your tactical acumen, but if I -had- to judge, I'd rate you at the very, very least as good as me, if not better in that role.
Let me clarify, I meant every DM I played under IRL. PBPs, by their very nature, tend not to lend themselves well to tactical play. Therefore, it's hard for me to judge your tactical acumen, but if I -had- to judge, I'd rate you at the very, very least as good as me, if not better in that role.
Oryan77
Adventurer
Well, I still don't think you are understanding what I'm referring to. I'm not talking about tactical errors at all. I'm not talking about whether or not the DM is playing tactically good or bad. I'm talking about forgetting a rule. Simple as that.Barak said:
It's not poor tactical play for a large NPC to move over one square to be face to face with his target. The objective is not to maneuver around the NPC, the objective is to simply make an attack. There is no "tactics" involved in this. An oversight of the rules (not needing to move because he has reach) is not "poor tactics". That large NPC would know he doesn't need to move because he has 10' reach and can take his full 2 attacks. But the DM is not the large NPC, and forgetting that he has 10' reach is an oversight of a rule, not a tactical error. A player pointing out the rules oversight (again, NOT poor tactics) is appreciated by most DM's.
That's the best I can explain it. If you still don't understand the difference, I don't know what else to say
