How much cheating do you tolerate?


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 319 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Technically, trait-wise, Unscathed increases any existing energy resistance you possess by 2. Probably not what you're looking for, though. ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Technically, trait-wise, Unscathed increases any existing energy resistance you possess by 2. Probably not what you're looking for, though. ^_^

Cool. I didn't see this when looking at the guide to traits; happy to be wrong. :)


bookrat wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
bookrat wrote:

If anyone cares to see the character that got all this started for me, here it is:

Link

How many things wrong can you find?

This is a 20 point buy character.

Just for fun...

1. Point Buy is off.
2. Archetype combination is illegal. Technically twice over, though I can forgive Bladebound/Hexcrafter. Hexcrafter/Kensai is a flat no though.
3. Dex mod is low. He's got a 15 and is using +1.
4. Str mod appears to be high. 14 and he's using +3.
5. Ref save is high; he appears to be building it as a high save instead of a low.
6. Not really an actual error but "spells known" and "spells prepared" are very different things and he got them backwards.
7. Too many 1st-level spells prepared (should be 3-1+1=3, he has 4)
8. Too many cantrips prepared (should be 4-1=3, he has 5)
9. I count 25 skill ranks when he should have 12
10. Stacking trait bonuses to initiative
11. Too many arcane pool points; should be 3/3=1+2=3, he has 5

I was unable to find Red Hand Fetish but I assume that's a trait. 6 Action Points is odd to me since I don't know of anywhere that Pathfinder uses Action Points; if those are meant to be Hero Points it's very off because sitting on six hero points is impossible to my knowledge.

I found almost all the ones you did, except for the action points (not knowing what they were, I ignored them) and the spells known vs prepared.

In addition to what you found, I also found the following:

1. His HP is not listed.
2. His Fort is claiming a +1 trait bonus, but he has no such trait.
3. He's not listing his hero points (although we all have 1 at this point).
4. He has too many languages known (should be goblin, common, +1 more; he has five listed).

And one from in game that you couldn't tell from the character sheet:

5. His Blade Bound archetype says that he cannot have a familiar at all, even...

LMAO. I dont think I have ever seen anyone cheat this hard.

So, what are the results of him being called out? Did it change anything?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

LMAO. I dont think I have ever seen anyone cheat this hard.

So, what are the results of him being called out? Did it change anything?

The GM did a better audit of his character sheet and admitted that some things definitely were off.

The GM did explain the strength and dex difference: the player had written down the wrong racial adjustments and thought it was +2 str, -2 dex (instead of +2 dex, +2 con); but even with that, while he changed his stats, he didn't change all the things his stats effect. At least, not consistently. His saves and attacks (and CMB/CMD) have the wrong stat adjustments, but his skills have the correct stat adjustments, as well as his encombrance weights.

The player has promised to fix everything this weekend, so if it isn't changed by Tuesday then I'm going to call him out again. If he still refuses to fix it, then I'm going to request that he cannot use in game any part of his character that is illegal or incorrect. If that doesn't work, then I'm going to request to the group a vote to kick him out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:

Whether you're a GM or a player, at some point in your gaming career you will encounter a cheater. Cheating may include fudging dice rolls, altering character sheets mid game, having illegal builds, and more.

Sometimes, the cheating in accidental, like a person making a mistake on a character build. Sometimes it's intentional, but beneficial to the game, like a GM fudging dice rolls to keep a character alive or to enhance the story. Sometimes it's just someone who wants to have the "best" character and is hoping you won't notice.

I informally surveyed some of my friends and have received responses ranging from "I dont tolerate it at all and the person needs to be confronted by the GM or the group" to "if a person really has to cheat in order to enjoy the game, then so be it."

What's your toleration limit? How do you deal with it - as a player or a GM? If your response is, "It's the GM's job," then how do you deal with it when the GM either doesn't deal with it or is too afraid to confront the cheater? What do you do if the person cheating is the GM? Is it different than if the person cheating is a fellow player?

How much cheating do you tolerate?

As a player...not at all in a fellow player or GM. I don't go overboard but I will bring it up for a discussion.

As a GM I don't except in one case. If one of my players is having a really bad night at rolling...and I can see the frustration building I tend to look the other way if he or she decides to fudge the dice a little.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
I found almost all the ones you did, except for the action points (not knowing what they were, I ignored them) and the spells known vs prepared.

He doesn't actually seem to list what's in his spellbook anywhere on that sheet, incidentally. Forgot to come back to that one.

Action points are a 3.5 optional system that mostly got ignored and were ditched in Pathfinder. I've never played 'em, but I recall reading about lots of balance issues.

If those are meant to be Hero Points, you can possibly have six if you drop a feat (brings your maximum to five) + a Ring of Heroes (has one hero point stored in it, but if you use it the Ring goes inert). He has neither of those things, which means he's hard-capped at 3.

bookrat wrote:

In addition to what you found, I also found the following:

1. His HP is not listed.
2. His Fort is claiming a +1 trait bonus, but he has no such trait.
3. He's not listing his hero points (although we all have 1 at this point).
4. He has too many languages known (should be goblin, common, +1 more; he has five listed).

Goblin Common and two more; he has Int 14 and Hobgoblins start with two languages. Still off though, you're right. And I meant to come back to the Fort save and just blanked on it; I think I assumed it was part of Red Hand Fetish maybe? Ah well.

bookrat wrote:

And one from in game that you couldn't tell from the character sheet:

5. His Blade Bound archetype says that he cannot have a familiar at all, even from another class, yet in game he keeps trying to pick up the chinchilla as his familiar. (We have an intelligent chinchilla that we rescued). Normally, this wouldn't bother me, but another character lost his animal companion from an archetype and took two feats to get a familiar in replacement, and this guy is trying to ignore his class restriction of never being allowed a familiar just by roleplaying it out and asking the GM - no additional feats or anything.

Seems odd that the other guy didn't go for another animal companion. But yes, that is rather stupid.

bookrat wrote:
And lastly, I tried to find the Red Hand Fetish trait and was unable to. At first, I thought it was a reasonable trait, but looking up other traits, only one gives energy resistance of any kind and it gives 1 point, not 2 (and something else!). Normally I would assume GM approved, but based on how many other things are wrong with this character, I am not as certain.

Unscathed is a trait that increases existing energy resistance by two points, meaning it'll commonly give +6 (Aasimar, Tieflings). That said, if Red Hand gives the +1 Fort and the energy resistance it's a no-go; generic +1 to a save is a trait in its own right.

Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a campaign trait from Reign of Winter that grants +1 to Fort saves and cold resistance 2.

That said, as I point out whenever someone brings up Trap Finder, campaign traits tend to go above and beyond the normal balance limits of traits, and shoudn't be considered "normal" traits.


I expected the "cheat sheet" to be more dramatic and include some really awesome abilities. It appears to just be a handmade sheet created by a guy who makes a lot of spelling errors, doesn't edit things carefully, and might not fully understand stacking. Something like Hero Lab might be a good idea for such a player. I've seen some problems with Hero Lab created sheets too, but at least with those you might not have to worry so much about whether the player is making intentional "mistakes".


Devilkiller wrote:
I expected the "cheat sheet" to be more dramatic and include some really awesome abilities. It appears to just be a handmade sheet created by a guy who makes a lot of spelling errors, doesn't edit things carefully, and might not fully understand stacking. Something like Hero Lab might be a good idea for such a player. I've seen some problems with Hero Lab created sheets too, but at least with those you might not have to worry so much about whether the player is making intentional "mistakes".

That's a good point. I may request to the group that he use Hero Lab or ScoreForge.


bookrat wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:
I expected the "cheat sheet" to be more dramatic and include some really awesome abilities. It appears to just be a handmade sheet created by a guy who makes a lot of spelling errors, doesn't edit things carefully, and might not fully understand stacking. Something like Hero Lab might be a good idea for such a player. I've seen some problems with Hero Lab created sheets too, but at least with those you might not have to worry so much about whether the player is making intentional "mistakes".
That's a good point. I may request to the group that he use Hero Lab or ScoreForge.

Hero lab cost money. I would talk to him about why he had so many mistakes. I still think he is cheating, but he might actually not know what he is doing.

I would also do audits every few levels.


ScoreForge is free.


When you said scoreforge, I thought you meant sourceforge. Now I know that scoreforge is part of sourceforge.

I knew that was free. I just have not looked at it in years so I was not aware of "scoreforge".

Even though I have herolabs I still might look into scoreforge for cases where I only need a simple character. It probably loads up faster than hero lab does.

Grand Lodge

Well, asking for a copy of each player's PC, is not automatically a sign that someone suspects cheating.

There are many reasons for having them.

1) Player's lose sheets. Best to have a back-up.

2) DMs likes to have an idea of what he/she is up against.

3) DMs may want to customize treasure, encounters, or other parts of the game to better suite the PCs.

I know Herolab was mentioned. I have Herolab.

I usually ask other players, if they want to have a digital copy of their PC.
If they say yes, I enter the information into Herolab, and produce a sheet, for them. If there are errors, I first check with the source material, to see if it is Herolab(it's good, but not perfect), and then if not, I tell the player, and volunteer to help them correct the mistakes.


wraithstrike wrote:

When you said scoreforge, I thought you meant sourceforge. Now I know that scoreforge is part of sourceforge.

I knew that was free. I just have not looked at it in years so I was not aware of "scoreforge".

Even though I have herolabs I still might look into scoreforge for cases where I only need a simple character. It probably loads up faster than hero lab does.

I have been pretty heavily involved with scoreforge for a few years now. My name is even in the program.

I'll tell you, while it is useful and highly customizable, it is not quick. That's it largest downfall - it is slow at nearly everything. It's part of the problem with using excel. However, it does allow you to put in custom classes, archetypes, traits, feats, pretty much custom anything. And figuring out the programming is easy, too. But dear lord is it slow (caveat: may be my computers don't have enough ram).

We do have a thread here on the message boards, so if you ever have any questions, feel free to ask there or even PM me and I'll be able to help out.


BBT, in our case, all of our character sheets are available online. With that, there's an unspoken rule that any player can look at any character sheet. I really don't get how someone would assume that players should not look at each other's character sheets when the GM wants all character sheets to be posted online with everyone Gavin access to them.

Personally, I have the same policy that you do: if my character sheets are not already freely available, then I allow anyone to see mine upon request for any reason.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

8 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a very particular reason (though others probably exist as well that I'm forgetting) why I personally don't like it when the GM fudges the dice or does other things that are sometimes called "cheating".

You see, when I watch a movie, I see things. I see the situation the characters are in, I see the resources they do or don't have, I see potential solutions to obstacles.

I very frequently watch a movie and think, "Wait, why don't they just do X? Wouldn't that solve the problem?"

Or, "Oh man, can you imagine if someone they had someone with skill/tool X here with them? That would totally change how this plays out."

Or, "Wait, he can do X? Why hasn't he done that before? Why is he not just spamming that right now?"

And so forth, both on the side of the heroes and on the side of the villains. These head-scratchers often really bother me.

Now, why do those types of moments exist? Sometimes it's a simple oversight, but usually it's deliberately done to either make the current scene more dramatic or to make a future dramatic scene possible. Basically, it's that this was supposed to be this kind of scene, but it's not turning out that way, so we'll just force it.

I can let that slide in movies to some degree, but the main reason I play roleplaying games at all is so that I can make real decisions that let me do the things that I keep wondering why the characters in the movies didn't do.

Then a GM says "This was supposed to be this kind of scene, but it's not turning out that way, so I'll just force it." They fudge the save, they double the HP, whatever. They take away the main thing that separates RPGs from movies for me: the ability to genuinely influence how things happen.

If you've decided ahead of time that (for example) the BBEG fight is gonna be this grueling, multi-round climax; and no matter what I or my tablemates do, that's exactly how it's going to turn out. Well, at that point, I see it as more of a movie/book than an RPG, because you've removed both the "roleplaying" AND the "game" from the "roleplaying game". And if I was gonna spend my time with a book, I'd have chosen one that's much better written than yours; if I was gonna spend my time with a movie, I'd have chosen one that's got much better special effects than yours.

Don't tell me we're gonna play a roleplaying game, and then instead give me a movie where you already know how each scene goes.

Sovereign Court

The Indescribable wrote:
I've had to pull some stupid tactics to survive. I was swallowed by an animated cauldron and was the only person with an ability to kill it's DR. I ended up bombing myself and it up with bombs.

It sounds like in that situation it wasn't a stupid tactic if it was the only way to kill it. Oddball? - yes. Stupid? - no.


Just because it's necessary doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

Silver Crusade

Player cheating I don't allow. I use herolab to build characters so there's little worry about mistakes. I'm not fond of player cheating because I'm a very forgiving and helpful GM. I like it when the players get shiny toys.

As a GM I don't fudge rolls usually, unless I think it would be REALLY funny for a bad guy to end up doing something stupid and he's almost dead anyway, so why not speed things up to get to the important stuff, like role playing and character drama.

As for rules, yes I will be more lenient with them if the result is cool enough or I think the rule in question is a bit dumb. Like allowing the gunslinger guntank to take improved point-blank shot.

Sovereign Court

Jiggy wrote:
I very frequently watch a movie and think, "Wait, why don't they just do X? Wouldn't that solve the problem?"

People like what they like. So I want to stress that I don't think there's anything wrong with how you like to play RPGs.

I also agree that surprise capabilities brought out solely for dramatic effect are poor storywriting practices. (Wait, why didn't R2D2 just use his rockets to fly in all those other movies, then?) Deus ex machina isn't automatically a lazy, ill-thought-out practice, however. It's problem is it's just much easier to do poorly than do well.

I think there's a divergent preference to what I think you're expressing. (I picked that one quoted line as what I think is the essence of your view..)

I happen to enjoy conventions being observed in RPGs. If one is playing a slasher-murder/horror type RPG, what fun is to be had by doing what you'd scream at the characters in a movie should do? Of course you're going to split up, visit the creepy cemetery, and by all means find ways to forget to call for the police. Like that Geico commercial says, "It's what you do".

To expand this point to RPGs across the board: Story structure exists for time-tested reasons. The way I like to run (or play) RPGs is where a good story is told. To accomplish this, I trust the instincts of a GM more than I do the dice.

I don't mean this as an invalidation of your preference, Jiggy. But personally, when I want a game where crunch, strategy, and dice rolls determine the outcome.. I'll play a wargame rather than a RPG.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:

Of course you're going to split up, visit the creepy cemetery, and by all means find ways to forget to call for the police.

...
The way I like to run (or play) RPGs is where a good story is told.

These statements are contradictory.

A story that leaves you wondering why in the world a character would do X instead of Y is not a good story. The fact that such situations have shown up in a lot of stories does not make them any less terrible.

Hiding from a known homicidal psychopath but then leaving your hiding place alone just because you heard footsteps, doesn't stop making for a stupid story just because it's been done a lot.

Just because something is common enough to be a familiar trope does NOT mean it's an ingredient to a good story.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
deusvult wrote:

Of course you're going to split up, visit the creepy cemetery, and by all means find ways to forget to call for the police.

...
The way I like to run (or play) RPGs is where a good story is told.

These statements are contradictory.

A story that leaves you wondering why in the world a character would do X instead of Y is not a good story. The fact that such situations have shown up in a lot of stories does not make them any less terrible.

Hiding from a known homicidal psychopath but then leaving your hiding place alone just because you heard footsteps, doesn't stop making for a stupid story just because it's been done a lot.

Just because something is common enough to be a familiar trope does NOT mean it's an ingredient to a good story.

Looks like we also disagree on what makes a "good" story. Which is fine and natural, as what is "good" is pretty vague and dependent upon the individual. If coherent logic is a crucial component for a story to be "good", then one is going to miss out on a lot of the fantasy genre, in my own opinion.

What is "logical" is going to be different not just person to person, but culture to culture. Samurai drama, for example, pretty much has to include the hero suffering (if not dying) over points of principle/honor. Wouldn't it be more logical for the hero to compromise his honor and get the bad guy, ala the Hollywood-esque individualistic action star?

Not always. In the genre of samurai drama, the "good" story has the heroes doing what is culturally appropriate, even if its not what you would do from your own mindset.

Leaving your own mindset aside and entering another is what makes RPGs grand. I like to embrace the conventions of the genre. Bringing your real-world notions about what a character in a dungeons&dragons, tolkienesque world should do is missing the point of roleplaying, in my opinion. Personally, I don't care what a human from the post-industrial world would do in the position of an elfin wizard facing down some challenge. What would that elfin wizard that never heard of our world do?

Sovereign Court

deusvult wrote:
I also agree that surprise capabilities brought out solely for dramatic effect are poor storywriting practices. (Wait, why didn't R2D2 just use his rockets to fly in all those other movies, then?) Deus ex machina isn't automatically a lazy, ill-thought-out practice, however. It's problem is it's just much easier to do poorly than do well.

I can't think of many times when it has been used well.

Heck - it was originally for Greek plays when the protagonist was in an impossible situation. Zeus would show up - smite the bad guys - and tell the protagonist that he liked his style before proceeding to fly away. Either that - or Hercules would show up and punch everyone. Hence the term Deus Ex Machina meaning 'god in the machine'.

Good writing? Not really. Only way it might be is if said protagonist knew that Hercules was going to show up - and the play had been about him playing for time etc. And at that point - I'm not sure it qualifies as the modern meaning of Deus Ex Machina.

The closest I can think of it being used well is in the game Deus Ex (play on words there) - you're captured by the bad guys and thrown in a prison cell. Then suddenly - someone contacts you and says they're about to cut the power and open your cell. However - that was relatively early in the game - it was still setting the stage - and there'd been foreshadowing etc as well.

And frankly - off-the-wall things happening early is setting the stage - it's only really Deus Ex if it happens out of the blue to solve the primary problems of the story.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can tolerate a fair amount of GM cheating, but I hate it. Inevitably I have found that it becomes a means of GM favoritism and/or a tool for the GM to railroad the story. That said, I can tolerate a fair amount because a GM can find other more offensive ways to do the same things, and the only alternatives I find are to abandon the GM or let the GM get experienced enough to grow out of it, and GMs do grow out of it (faster when they sit on both sides of the GM screen).

Player cheating I have very little tolerance for. Die roll cheating, no way - for me the whole point of using a d20 system is challenge the fates. Character sheet cheating, if a weak character has some fudged numbers to go from pathetic to merely miserable then I don't get upset and don't mind overlooking it as long as it is corrected; if a strong character fudges numbers to go from strong to dominating then I get fairly upset as I consider the player stole narrative power - while I keep in mind that it could be an innocent mistake, the amount of benefit of the doubt a cheating character gets depends on the strength of the character.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:

What is "logical" is going to be different not just person to person, but culture to culture. Samurai drama, for example, pretty much has to include the hero suffering (if not dying) over points of principle/honor. Wouldn't it be more logical for the hero to compromise his honor and get the bad guy, ala the Hollywood-esque individualistic action star?

Not always. In the genre of samurai drama, the "good" story has the heroes doing what is culturally appropriate, even if its not what you would do from your own mindset.

Not at all what I'm talking about.

Character motivations, such as a samurai's honor, are part of the "logic" that I want in a good story. Or to use the slasher horror example from earlier: if the guy who ventures out alone to investigate a noise while he knows there's a killer looking for him has already been identified in the story as a stupid person, then we're all good.

No, I'm talking about genuine nonsense.

What's the cultural explanation for why Voldemort (the movie version) wasn't spamming the killing curse in his fight against Dumbledore?* I mean, he's confirmed to know the spell, has no qualms about killing, knows Dumbledore is a threat, etc. So why, when Dumbledore fights him, does he not just spam that unblockable, instant-death spell? Now, we have a good reason why Dumbledore doesn't do that; it's well-established that nice people don't use that spell. But Voldemort uses it willy-nilly elsewhere, so why not here?

Because exploding glass and a giant fire snake look really cool in a climactic movie showdown.

When a character is already established as being ready, willing and able to do X at the drop of a hat, and they encounter a situation where X is the obvious thing to do, failing to do so is NOT the kind of cross-cultural roleplaying experience that you're talking about.

Either you're blind to think the "not what I would do" moments are all culturally appropriate with no genuine nonsense, or you're deliberately being dishonest by lumping cultural differences and genuine nonsense together in order to make me look anti-roleplaying.

Either way, stop it. There's no culture that produces BBEGs whose HP might or might not spontaneously double depending on how fast they're losing a fight.

*:
In the book, Voldemort actually does spam the killing curse at Dumbledore, which got me pretty excited to see a villain acting in congruence with their own established character.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
Why cheat? We all know the outcome. Playing this game is like watching the movie Titanic - in the movie you know the Titanic is going to sink. You know the outcome. All you're watching for is to see the conflicts, the drama, the heroics along the way.

Ahhh, comparing fraudulent RPG gaming and James Cameron's Titanic.

One is a horrible, deplorable thing that causes tables full of intelligent folks to wonder why such a thing was attempted, is full of nasty dialogue, and leaves all involved with a sad feeling.

The other is cheating.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

What's the cultural explanation for why Voldemort (the movie version) wasn't spamming the killing curse in his fight against Dumbledore?* I mean, he's confirmed to know the spell, has no qualms about killing, knows Dumbledore is a threat, etc. So why, when Dumbledore fights him, does he not just spam that unblockable, instant-death spell? Now, we have a good reason why Dumbledore doesn't do that; it's well-established that nice people don't use that spell. But Voldemort uses it willy-nilly elsewhere, so why not here?

Yeah - I've gotta say that the Harry Potter books & movies both are chock full of such issues. (And he didn't really spam it in the book either, though he did use it a couple times. He was too busy expositioning.)

I like the books. Rowling is the master of pacing - which I generally consider to be the hardest part of writing. But her world building/consistency has all sorts of issues.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
(And he didn't really spam it in the book either, though he did use it a couple times. He was too busy expositioning.)

More than a couple times, I thought. Man, now I have to go look it up tonight. :/

/derail

Sovereign Court

Jiggy wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
(And he didn't really spam it in the book either, though he did use it a couple times. He was too busy expositioning.)

More than a couple times, I thought. Man, now I have to go look it up tonight. :/

/derail

I was thinking just twice. Once blocked by a statue - once absorbed by Fawkes. Maybe a third. *shrug*

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Either way, stop it. There's no culture that produces BBEGs whose HP might or might not spontaneously double depending on how fast they're losing a fight.

You know, you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing: Saying the extreme is representative of the whole.

Of course I never said bad utilization of fudging (or literary devices such as deus ex machina) was a good thing or even culturally relative. In fact I even acknowledged that deus ex machina in particular is more easily done poorly than done well.

I was saying that what's strategically optimal given the circumstances isn't optimal given the needs of the game. In my opinion. I think it's great roleplaying to go ahead and do things that you know are "strategically bad" but appropriate to the game/genre. Like hiding in the cemetery in a horror RPG or not using sanitary practices in a medieval RPG or asking for permission for seppuku in a samurai RPG. It's not "what I would do in that situation", but it's what the character in that genre would do. Wanting what you want from a game isn't bad. I want it too sometimes.. but because we have different opinions I indulge in those wants in a wargame rather than in a roleplaying game.

If you can't hear about a divergent opinion without taking it as a personal attack, then I suppose I should go ahead and be done trying to talk with you. You seem to only want to be talked at so you can argue.

Peace.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And Jiggy never actually said "strategically optimal".

"Don't be an idiot for the sake of the story and stick to your characterizations" and "always do the best possible move" are not even close, and you interpreted his point in the latter sense. Doing such is a classic strawman: by interpreting Jiggy's point as "make the strategically optimal move always", you make it far more open to attack-- notably you attacked his point with an argument hinging on character motivations when character motivations playing a part in what they do was explicitly part of what he wanted to see more of.

Just saying.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Either way, stop it. There's no culture that produces BBEGs whose HP might or might not spontaneously double depending on how fast they're losing a fight.
You know, you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing: Saying the extreme is representative of the whole.

I did not accuse you of that. I accused you of lumping "makes sense for that character but not for modern me" in with "doesn't make sense for that character".

Quote:
I was saying that what's strategically optimal given the circumstances isn't optimal given the needs of the game.

I. Never. Disagreed. With. That.

Heck, I never even mentioned "strategically optimal" (or even "strategic" or "optimal" by themselves). You inserted that all on your own. What post were you reading?

Quote:
I think it's great roleplaying to go ahead and do things that you know are bad but appropriate to the game/genre.

I agree with this.

I'm just saying that there are some things which, though they often show up in a given genre, are still stupid and/or don't match the established characterization of the character performing the action.

Quote:
It's not "what I would do in that situation", but it's what the character in that genre would do. Wanting what you want from a game isn't bad. I want it too sometimes.. but because we have different opinions I indulge in those wants in a wargame rather than in a roleplaying game.

Acting in accordance with your character is something you go to a wargame for? Because that's what you just said.

Quote:
If you can't hear about a divergent opinion without taking it as a personal attack, then I suppose I should go ahead and be done trying to talk with you. You seem to only want to be talked at so you can argue.

If you ever decide to read one of my posts start to finish and reply to what I actually wrote instead of replying to a party line that you're assuming I represent, then I'd be happy to have a discussion with you. But yeah, if you make shit up about how when I say "do what makes sense for the character" I somehow meant "do what's strategically optimal even if it's contrary to the character", then I guess I'm gonna keep looking argumentative.


bookrat wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:
I expected the "cheat sheet" to be more dramatic and include some really awesome abilities. It appears to just be a handmade sheet created by a guy who makes a lot of spelling errors, doesn't edit things carefully, and might not fully understand stacking. Something like Hero Lab might be a good idea for such a player. I've seen some problems with Hero Lab created sheets too, but at least with those you might not have to worry so much about whether the player is making intentional "mistakes".
That's a good point. I may request to the group that he use Hero Lab or ScoreForge.

Yeah, and considering that many of these errors were against him, I think accusations of 'cheating" are unfair. He just made some mistakes and he didnt care about them- as the DM didnt seem care about them.

Why do these mistakes make such a bid deal to you? I mean, I didnt see anything that makes his character game breaking to the point where it'd reduce the fun for the other players.

Are you sure there's nothing personal between the two of you?


DrDeth wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:
I expected the "cheat sheet" to be more dramatic and include some really awesome abilities. It appears to just be a handmade sheet created by a guy who makes a lot of spelling errors, doesn't edit things carefully, and might not fully understand stacking. Something like Hero Lab might be a good idea for such a player. I've seen some problems with Hero Lab created sheets too, but at least with those you might not have to worry so much about whether the player is making intentional "mistakes".
That's a good point. I may request to the group that he use Hero Lab or ScoreForge.

Yeah, and considering that many of these errors were against him, I think accusations of 'cheating" are unfair. He just made some mistakes and he didnt care about them- as the DM didnt seem care about them.

Why do these mistakes make such a bid deal to you? I mean, I didnt see anything that makes his character game breaking to the point where it'd reduce the fun for the other players.

Are you sure there's nothing personal between the two of you?

Only one of the errors noted is against him; that he was using a +1 as his Dex mod (which only mattered for one point off his AC, since other errors had his Ref and Initiative over where they should be anyway). And at least one of the errors (archetype stacking) will make him extremely strong if it persists.

Not having HP presents its own problems too. I could easily see that one reducing fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think much of what's considered "cheating" depends on the social contract between players and DM. Some groups defer to the DM as the ultimate arbiter, able to override the rules as he or she sees fit, "for the good of the game." Others prefer a DM who's as close to RAW as humanly possible, considered an ambulatory extension of the rulebook.

There is an entire spectrum of DM authority between "impotent fantasy tour guide there to cheerfully endure players' abuse" and "autocratic god-king who brooks no defiance and will smite you for even infinitesimal transgressions and defiance."

Anything a player does that's knowingly dishonest or deceptive is cheating. Much meta-gaming is, in my opinion, cheating. Constantly pulling the "the die is cocked" crap becomes cheating progressively as the incidences mount.

A DM only cheats if rules limiting his or her authority have been discussed, and then agreed on by the DM him or herself. If not, he or she is wholly above the law.


I think voldemort spamming a single spell is probably just stupid. We've seen that it's fairly easy to block, you just can't shield against it. A wide arsenal is preferable so long as you don't hesitate while deciding what to do next. Keeping your enemy off balance is key.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

About Red Hand Fetish:

It was a trait that used to be on d20pfsrd.com, however it is no longer there for some reason. It was a very peculiar trait and was created, in my memory, either by "Pathfinder Fans United" or something similar.

I honestly don't know why it's not there, and Google doesn't pull it up - the only reason that I know about it is that I've used it before for GM-granted character-boon stuff.

I don't remember exactly what it does - as I recall, it had several different potential benefits based on whatever kind fetish you'd crafted or earned or something to get the trait in the first place - sorry, it's been a while. I think one of the benefits had something to do with the Heal skill? At least, I vaguely recall finding it through that method.

(For the record: no, I am not the player in question. That... looks pretty bad, really. Hopefully it's an accident.)

As to anything else, I'd agree with others on the proper order:

- 1) talk to the person in private personally first

- 2) talk to the GM, preferably with the person present

- 3) bring it before the group

... but only if it's actually disrupting play (such as by causing jealousy, irritation, or spotlight-hogging).

This seems to be the optimal way of broadly handling things.

If you can have an open record of your "private" conversation, so much the better, but that's not necessary unless the person is known to be petty and spiteful.


DrDeth wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:
I expected the "cheat sheet" to be more dramatic and include some really awesome abilities. It appears to just be a handmade sheet created by a guy who makes a lot of spelling errors, doesn't edit things carefully, and might not fully understand stacking. Something like Hero Lab might be a good idea for such a player. I've seen some problems with Hero Lab created sheets too, but at least with those you might not have to worry so much about whether the player is making intentional "mistakes".
That's a good point. I may request to the group that he use Hero Lab or ScoreForge.

Yeah, and considering that many of these errors were against him, I think accusations of 'cheating" are unfair. He just made some mistakes and he didnt care about them- as the DM didnt seem care about them.

Why do these mistakes make such a bid deal to you? I mean, I didnt see anything that makes his character game breaking to the point where it'd reduce the fun for the other players.

Are you sure there's nothing personal between the two of you?

Nobody said the GM did not care. He just seem to be very nonconfrontational. Cheating matters because its annoying when one person is not following the rules and everyone else is. Different things annoy different people. The threads where some GM's do not allow for people to reflavor characters are examples of this.

Bookrat is also the one at the table, and the player intentionally ignoring a houserule he did not like along with the character errors are not exactly making him look like "not a cheater".

I can understand you not liking how it was handled, but to ignore other things that were mentioned is starting to make you look biased.

PS: I see your point, but maybe the other players did not notice or maybe they wanted to speak up but were afraid to rock the boat.
I would have called him out too eventually, if he was at my table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:


For example, if I were in a game with TOZ, he'd be respectful enough say point-blank at the start, "I will occasionally fudge the dice, and if you call me on it I'll admit it." I can respect that approach far more than the people who fudge the dice and then pretend like they don't. Hell, I've run games for players who preferred the DM to fudge rolls; I roll in the open, but I'd occasionally say, "Screw that 20! I'm rerolling it, unless anyone objects!"

Well, I'm no TOZ, but can we compromise? "I will occasionally fudge the dice, and if you call me out on it I'll call you a liar, say you drank all my milk*, and shame you in front of your peers. If you prove I'm lying, I'll storm out, break into your neighbors' house, drink all their milk, and leave a note saying it was you."

*Nope. Still not old. The milk, that is. The reference? Oh hell yeah it's expired.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:


For example, if I were in a game with TOZ, he'd be respectful enough say point-blank at the start, "I will occasionally fudge the dice, and if you call me on it I'll admit it." I can respect that approach far more than the people who fudge the dice and then pretend like they don't. Hell, I've run games for players who preferred the DM to fudge rolls; I roll in the open, but I'd occasionally say, "Screw that 20! I'm rerolling it, unless anyone objects!"

Well, I'm no TOZ, but can we compromise? "I will occasionally fudge the dice, and if you call me out on it I'll call you a liar, say you drank all my milk*, and shame you in front of your peers. If you prove I'm lying, I'll storm out, break into your neighbors' house, drink all their milk, and leave a note saying it was you."

terrible to deprive the party like that. when characters get together in the bars to talk about their players, they don't talk about the upteenth time the party slayed a dragon risk-free because the GM was fudging the dice. We talk about the players who almost got us killed with their crappy rolls - Windmill Willy who couldn't roll above a 4 to hit for 3 sessions in row and had an 0 for 47 record, Stoney Steve who played a barbarian and made exactly one will save in a 15 level career and had to be repeatedly turned to stone by a druid to keep from wiping the party, and Snake-Eye Susan the girlfriend who filled a spot with a ninth level wizard for one session and cast fireballs that did less than 10 points of damage. We talk about the time our player learned that a babasu with a single spear attack can do over 50 points of damage on a crit. When the GM decides to coddle the players it is the characters who suffer, dying isn't bad as long as we get some good stories out of it.


Generally accepted rules at our tables:
- the dice fall where they may. Sometimes a DM will fudge a little something to keep the game moving but bad rolls happen on both sides of the table, and so do amazing rolls, and the result might be dead PCs.
- the rules are the rules. If there are exceptions or alterations to them these will be announced before implementation.

We have, however, been rather lenient when it comes to a couple of known cheaters in our group. There's math errors or mistaking the meaning of the rules, then there's having more than twice the xp of the other PCs or blatantly ignoring restrictions 'because he didn't like them'. There's being able to pull amazing rolls out of your arse on demand (and trust me, they can do it with witnesses) and there is never failing a roll ever.
However, we like these people and in one case there are some shitty life issues otherwise, so rather than make a big deal we just say that the character sheets will be audited by the DM on a regular basis and irregularities will be dealt with harshly, and all rolls must be witnessed by at least one other player. No names named, no reasons given, no official loss of face, but everyone knows why these rules are introduced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
then there's having more than twice the xp of the other PCs

Hey! That happened to me!

... though in my defense, it was one of my earliest games (a three-point-five person group); the GM was "experimenting" with giving everyone XP at the same time; one of the players never wrote down their XP (due to being exhausted later), and was convinced that no XP had been given, thus requesting the GM give out XP (despite me thinking differently, and stating so).

In any event, it was rather definitively "proven" that the GM had been giving out XP twice (at the end of the week's session, and the beginning of the next week's) when I cast a fifth level spell waaaayyyy too early. Because I was much higher leveled than anyone else. Because my XP was almost twice what the others' were.

As a result, there was quite some debate on what to do.

I suggested that I not get any XP, or that I make a new character, or that I lose XP and levels somehow. (Those were all rejected by both GM and players, much to my confusion. She just stopped doing group XP. :/)

It's never happened in any other game, but yeah, I remember that one time. (And I wasn't allowed to correct it. :I)


Greg the Ghoul wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:


For example, if I were in a game with TOZ, he'd be respectful enough say point-blank at the start, "I will occasionally fudge the dice, and if you call me on it I'll admit it." I can respect that approach far more than the people who fudge the dice and then pretend like they don't. Hell, I've run games for players who preferred the DM to fudge rolls; I roll in the open, but I'd occasionally say, "Screw that 20! I'm rerolling it, unless anyone objects!"

Well, I'm no TOZ, but can we compromise? "I will occasionally fudge the dice, and if you call me out on it I'll call you a liar, say you drank all my milk*, and shame you in front of your peers. If you prove I'm lying, I'll storm out, break into your neighbors' house, drink all their milk, and leave a note saying it was you."

terrible to deprive the party like that. when characters get together in the bars to talk about their players, they don't talk about the upteenth time the party slayed a dragon risk-free because the GM was fudging the dice. We talk about the players who almost got us killed with their crappy rolls - Windmill Willy who couldn't roll above a 4 to hit for 3 sessions in row and had an 0 for 47 record, Stoney Steve who played a barbarian and made exactly one will save in a 15 level career and had to be repeatedly turned to stone by a druid to keep from wiping the party, and Snake-Eye Susan the girlfriend who filled a spot with a ninth level wizard for one session and cast fireballs that did less than 10 points of damage. We talk about the time our player learned that a babasu with a single spear attack can do over 50 points of damage on a crit. When the GM decides to coddle the players it is the characters who suffer, dying isn't bad as long as we get some good stories out of it.

No offence intended: even though you are a ghoul, you surprisingly have some really interesting stories to tell people about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Related to players cheatin’ with dice: Can anyone recommend a source for polyhedral dice that are both fair and exceptionally readable cross-table? I’m thinking oversized, high-contrast dice with simple numerals and no distracting detailing.


Greg the Ghoul wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:


For example, if I were in a game with TOZ, he'd be respectful enough say point-blank at the start, "I will occasionally fudge the dice, and if you call me on it I'll admit it." I can respect that approach far more than the people who fudge the dice and then pretend like they don't. Hell, I've run games for players who preferred the DM to fudge rolls; I roll in the open, but I'd occasionally say, "Screw that 20! I'm rerolling it, unless anyone objects!"

Well, I'm no TOZ, but can we compromise? "I will occasionally fudge the dice, and if you call me out on it I'll call you a liar, say you drank all my milk*, and shame you in front of your peers. If you prove I'm lying, I'll storm out, break into your neighbors' house, drink all their milk, and leave a note saying it was you."

terrible to deprive the party like that. when characters get together in the bars to talk about their players, they don't talk about the upteenth time the party slayed a dragon risk-free because the GM was fudging the dice. We talk about the players who almost got us killed with their crappy rolls - Windmill Willy who couldn't roll above a 4 to hit for 3 sessions in row and had an 0 for 47 record, Stoney Steve who played a barbarian and made exactly one will save in a 15 level career and had to be repeatedly turned to stone by a druid to keep from wiping the party, and Snake-Eye Susan the girlfriend who filled a spot with a ninth level wizard for one session and cast fireballs that did less than 10 points of damage. We talk about the time our player learned that a babasu with a single spear attack can do over 50 points of damage on a crit. When the GM decides to coddle the players it is the characters who suffer, dying isn't bad as long as we get some good stories out of it.

I actually never fudge. I find it hurts the game aspect, but Jiggy already basically summed up my whole views on GM cheating (as for player cheating: That's basically insulting me as far as I'm concerned). I was just joking. :P

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A slightly different tack to the discussion:

Is it cheating/fudging to give PCs CR-appropriate encounters?

After all that's the entire point of Pathfinder's CR system- to ensure that the players generally can win. Whether or not the GM fudges a will save for the BBEG to a "nat 20" so the climactic fight is not over in 1 round, or if the GM fudges a crit down to a normal hit so he doesn't kill a PC.. these are tangential discussions about the underlying paradigm:

The game doesn't even pretend to offer truly fair fights. The PCs are presumed to win (at least in the end, if not in every single fight).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nah, that's just running a mild game.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Emmit Svenson wrote:
Related to players cheatin’ with dice: Can anyone recommend a source for polyhedral dice that are both fair and exceptionally readable cross-table? I’m thinking oversized, high-contrast dice with simple numerals and no distracting detailing.

Have everyone use that giant red d20 that has flashing LEDs when it rolls a 20. ;)

For myself, I generally use Chessex dice, such as those which come in a little plastic rectangle with one of each type of die (d4 through d20). As long as I pick a set whose color scheme offers good contrast, I find they're readable from across the table fairly easily, despite not being oversized.

As for being "fair", what's your criteria?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:

A slightly different tack to the discussion:

Is it cheating/fudging to give PCs CR-appropriate encounters?

After all that's the entire point of Pathfinder's CR system- to ensure that the players generally can win. Whether or not the GM fudges a will save for the BBEG to a "nat 20" so the climactic fight is not over in 1 round, or if the GM fudges a crit down to a normal hit so he doesn't kill a PC.. these are tangential discussions about the underlying paradigm:

The game doesn't even pretend to offer truly fair fights. The PCs are presumed to win (at least in the end, if not in every single fight).

As I talked about before, it's as simple as this: whatever the group agreed (explicitly or not) was going to be happening is "fair", while any deviation from that is "cheating".

So, for example, suppose the players build their characters under the impression that encounters will be CR-appropriate, or X level of challenge, or whatever. Maybe they lowball their optimization because they want a gritty meatgrinder that forces them to think tactically, or maybe they optimize highly because they want a fun roflstomp of carnage-joy, or maybe they go somewhere in between with an understanding of a sandbox world where they'll be constantly gauging their own power against that of potential obstacles.

If the GM then goes outside that group agreement by providing encounters that are different enough as to provide a different play experience (such as turning the meatgrinder into something easier, or the roflstomp into something harder, or the open sandbox into "everything is a level-appropriate encounter no matter where you are"), then the GM has betrayed the other people at the table. Maybe you use the word "cheating" or maybe not, but either way, the GM's being a selfish jerk.

151 to 200 of 319 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / How much cheating do you tolerate? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.