What is cheating?

[Barak]

Amazingly, I feel the same way!

I've said again and again that I'll point out rule errors, and do not mind them pointed out to me. Tactical decisions are different.

Your "large monster moving" is a tad weird of an example to me.

How far away is he to begin with? 15'? Anything different removes the possibility of the rule oversight, so we'll go with 15'.

There are reasons to close in to 5' of the PC in such a situation. Say the chances of the creature hitting with his second attack are low due to the PC having a high AC compared to the creature's attack (and the creature could know that from previous rounds). By closing in with the PC, the creature will automatically force the PC to create an AoO should the PC do -anything- but attack. There are many reasons why a PC would do that (he's an archer, he's heavily wounded and need to drink a potion, he's a spellcaster, etc.). Since the AoO uses the creature's highest BAB, it's chance of hitting are 25% better. If the creature has a good reason to believe the PC will do so.. It's tactically sound.

While many DMs can be prone to forget many things, reach, in my experience, is not one of them. So if the DM decides to close in with my PC and attack him, foregoing an iterative attack, that is what I'll assume he figured. Then I'll decide if it's worth provoking an AoO.

But I sincerely believe I wouldn't be cheating by doing so.

 

[Mr Baron]

Interesting topic

Good question...I have been chewing on this one for an hour or so

I think cheating in RPG's can be summed up like this:

For a player I think it can be broadly defined, but I think we would all recognize it if we saw it. Basically if a player is trying to gain an unfair advantage, and it ruins the spirit of the game, it can probably be called cheating or worse.

For a DM, it is harder to define, since they need flexibility to change, and such. I would say that there are good DM's and not so good DM's, and leave it at that.

Specifically:

If a player looks up spells in the PHB just to figure out what spell the DM cast?
- PHB is fair game, hence the name. I have no objections.

If a player knows a monster is immune to spells (but his PC doesn't) and he tells the group "I think these are immune to all spells?
- Depends on the monster. I would expect the characters to have general knowledge of common monsters. But I know that there are some folks out there that have every known monster memorized. My recommendation is to modify the existing monsters or make your own...that kind of thing. Metagaming is hard to cut our entirely, especially in combat. I think you kind of need to spell out what's ok and what's not ok in this regard. I suspect that most gaming groups work out generally accepted house rules on howe to deal with this. Looking up monsters in the MM, or having a super monster index on your laptop is not in keeping with the spirit of the rules (cheating).

If a player uses a program on his laptop to calculate ECL vs a monsters CR (he's not supposed to know the CR of the monster) and tells players that this monster is way to hard for them?
- I think the first part of that says it all..."a player is using his laptop to run a program.." This is not in keeping with the spirit of the rules. However, I would expect players to have a feel for encounters that are too tough and take the appropriate response (Sir Robin ran away...)

If a player purposely doesn't remind the DM of a rule the DM forgot about just so a PC won't suffer the effects? You suspect this because he coincidently brings it up 2 rounds later that you forgot something.
- I think I know where you are going on this one. We all forget rules, and we move past it. But there are times, when a player knows that he/she is suppose to take a save or suffer a bad affect, and doesn't. I can not define it exactly, but I know it when I see it. This is not in keeping with the spirit of the rules. Honest mistakes are one thing, but....

 

[Mr Baron]

Do DM's let players use notebook computers?

This is an interesting question,.....Is this cheating?

Generally I would say no to in game use..

 

[Li Shenron]

For me these are cheating:

- breaking the rules when creating a PC or levelling up (e.g. giving you extra stuff, ignoring requisites)

- telling the DM a wrong dice result (or any other number) to your advantage

- suggest the DM to adjudicate a situation in a certain way which you don't believe it's correct, or tell him the wrong rules about your PC's abilities (incl. taking advantage of contradicting sources like FAQ)

- reading an adventure in advance, or peeking into the DM's notes

Metagaming is not cheating. Sometimes it gets close, but it's different IMO.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Your "large monster moving" is a tad weird of an example to me.

How far away is he to begin with? 15'? Anything different removes the possibility of the rule oversight, so we'll go with 15'.

There are reasons to close in to 5' of the PC in such a situation.

Also, it disallows withdrawling, which can really mess up PCs sometimes.

If a player looks up spells in the PHB just to figure out what spell the DM cast?

It's usually not necessary. A trivial spellcraft roll will get the answer to that, and its not like I'm passing notecards around for those. What they do with the knowlege? It depends on how the group feels about metagaming. In my group, metagaming is pretty much cheating, and is frowned on heavily by everyone. Thus, no one does it. I could see more liberal groups, however. So its going to vary.

If a player uses a program on his laptop to calculate ECL vs a monsters CR (he's not supposed to know the CR of the monster) and tells players that this monster is way to hard for them?

Like above with metagaming, but this one is more dangerous for the Players involved. Never take what you see as what actually is. Usually you'll be right (as long as humanoids aren't involved), but I can't imagine anyone relying on so much guessed information.

If a player purposely doesn't remind the DM of a rule the DM forgot about just so a PC won't suffer the effects? You suspect this because he coincidently brings it up 2 rounds later that you forgot something.

Depends on the group. Some groups may feel that it isn't other people's job to remind others of things, orther groups will feel that its important for everyone to catch each others mistakes. I fall into the latter, but I can see certain groups in the former, so its going to vary, obviously. I don't think my group would see this as cheating, exactly, but questionable behavior.

Cheating itself is really any time you ignore the rules. So if you don't know you're not following the rules you aren't cheating, but if you are conciously doing something not according the rules, then you're cheating. And, rules in this case must include all Table Rules, which go back to the metagaming and things.

 

[Agback]

I know people can't help metagaming sometimes when they know what a monster can do or what a spell can do when their PC shouldn't know. There's not much you can do about it but ask the player not to tell others and to try to play his PC as if the PC doesn't know.

Another good idea is not to run games like that. They aren't a lot of fun.

 

[wedgeski]

If a player looks up spells in the PHB just to figure out what spell the DM cast?

No, that's just the difference between a player who does know the PHB backwards, and a player who doesn't.

If a player knows a monster is immune to spells (but his PC doesn't) and he tells the group "I think these are immune to all spells?

Not cheating per se, but an annoying piece of metagaming that I would warn him about.

If a player uses a program on his laptop to calculate ECL vs a monsters CR (he's not supposed to know the CR of the monster) and tells players that this monster is way to hard for them?

Again, irritating, but hardly cheating. Besides which, how does he know what changes you've made to the monster behind the screen?

If a player purposely doesn't remind the DM of a rule the DM forgot about just so a PC won't suffer the effects? You suspect this because he coincidently brings it up 2 rounds later that you forgot something.

Nothing wrong with this, it's not his job to DM for you. Besides which, it would kind of be like the kid in class who reminds the teacher to set homework, would it not?

What other kind of incidents do you concider cheating that aren't so obvious?

I think the lines are pretty clear cut between cheating, metagaming, and being just plain annoying. Lying about dice rolls is the most obvious; fudging your character; knowing an adventure beforehand and not telling your DM... I'm already running out!

Also, is it possible for a DM to cheat? If he's fudging things behind the screen simply to enhance the game, would you still find that cheating on the DM's part?

This is a much bigger discussion and the lines are not as clear cut here. The DM must be trusted to do what is right for the game, because the implications of a DM mistake are much greater for the campaign than player error. Because of that, the definition of cheating for a DM is very different.

 

[shilsen]

Another good idea is not to run games like that. They aren't a lot of fun.

Depends on perspective. As a player I constantly separate player knowledge and character knowledge and I explicitly expect that of my players. And none of them has had any complaints about it and seem to enjoy my games just fine. For me, a game where I used player knowledge instead of PC knowledge would be a serious pain.

 

[Oryan77]

Tactical decisions are different.

Your "large monster moving" is a tad weird of an example to me.

Yeah, maybe I'm using a bad example here. You see this as a tactical flaw, but I'm trying to explain it as a rules oversight. So let me try using a better example of when DM's appreciate player's reminding them of a forgotten effect that may even harm a player (which is all I was really asking about)...

A DM forgets a poisons secondary effect. The poisoned player knows he needs to roll that save but purposely doesn't remind the DM about it so he won't be harmed.

or

A DM forgets the monster has spell resistance and never asks the caster to penetrate it. After the encounter a player finally speaks up and says, "You know it had spell resistance right?" The player didn't just remember about it himself, he purposely waited until the end of the encounter to say something.

In this last example; I understand a player isn't responsible for keeping up with monster abilities and has no obligation to remind the DM about the ability. But if a player informs a DM afterwards that he knows about a DM's oversight, that tells me the player is only speaking up now just to rub it in the DM's face. He knew about the oversight and didn't say anything so the party wouldn't be effected; this comes off to me as a player vs DM mentality. I see a D&D group as being a team working together to run a fair/fun game.

I won't remind a PC about an ability of theirs if it's an ability that they have a choice of using or not (like a spell-like ability). But if it's something that's supposed to always be active (like resistance) I will remind them about it. I appreciate when player's help me out the same way. Not by telling me how to run an NPC, but by reminding me of something I may have forgotten when using the NPC.

 

[buzz]

But what type of things do you concider flat out cheating?

Leaving aside questions about what exactly it means to "cheat"...

If a player looks up spells in the PHB just to figure out what spell the DM cast?

PHB is a player book, so it's not cheating IMO. Assuming the spell has been cast already, and the PCs have seen its effects, it's no secret.

If a player knows a monster is immune to spells (but his PC doesn't) and he tells the group "I think these are immune to all spells?

Metagaming, certianly, but not cheating. Depending on how the group plays, though, this level of metagaming may be frowned upon.

If a player uses a program on his laptop to calculate ECL vs a monsters CR (he's not supposed to know the CR of the monster) and tells players that this monster is way to hard for them?

Not cheating. Heck, I have players who can do this in their head. So what? This isn't giving the PCs any sort of advantage.

If a player purposely doesn't remind the DM of a rule the DM forgot about just so a PC won't suffer the effects? You suspect this because he coincidently brings it up 2 rounds later that you forgot something.

I would consider this bad form; I suppose that's cheating, in a way. And, yes, I'd consider similar behavior on the DM's part bad form, too.

Then again, for groups that are very much into pitting the players' mastery vs. the DM's, they may have no problem with it.

Also, is it possible for a DM to cheat? If he's fudging things behind the screen simply to enhance the game, would you still find that cheating on the DM's part?

The DMG and DMG2 actually discourage fudging, though don't rule it out entirely.

But, anyway... is fudging = cheating? Personally, I'm not a big fan, as I want my PC to suceed or fail on my own merits; I don't want him or his opponents to be given breaks. I feel like it deflates the challenge aspect of D&D. I.e., I feel "cheated".

That said, I would only say that fudging on the DM's part is "cheating" only if there was no understanding among the group that, yes, the DM is going to fudge things in the interest of "fun." The idea that fudging is an inherrent part of DM'ing is something I do not agree with.