EAT THE BODY!!! DUH! Bodies are easier to hide if they're in bite size chunks.
Or you can be a woman and talk...with a stick.
Remember guys if you hit your wife it's domestic violence if your buddy hits your wife, you can testify that she swung first.
Mr. Fishy knows things.
YES PLEASE!!!!
YES PLEASE!!!!
SCREW YOU FISH HOLE!!!!! You suck algae!
Mr. Fishy is always ready to battle the forces of forum troll.
TOZ is an arrogant pricks? Mr. Fishy noticed no one posted in Mr. Fishy's defense...Air breathers!
We need more than two people...Mr. Fishy may have to go to WOTC forums and scream 4th sucks and watch the flames burn...
TOZ is an arrogant pricks? Mr. Fishy noticed no one posted in Mr. Fishy's defense...Air breathers!
We need more than two people...Mr. Fishy may have to go to WOTC forums and scream 4th sucks and watch the flames burn...
Mr. Fishy breathes air too, you know?
YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!!!
You damn mammals with your lungs and feet, think your so special.
Hey TMZ Mr. Fishy got us to three.
TIER FISHY!!!
YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!!!
You damn mammals with your lungs and feet, think your so special.
Hey TMZ Mr. Fishy got us to three.
TIER FISHY!!!
Sorry fishym it's the truth. Although I do admit that feet makes us special, but opposable tumbs are better. I would kill for gils though.
Thumbs are for monkeys.
Day late and a dollar short I know, but the "Aerosmith way" wouldn't happen to be "Don't get mad, get even" would it?
Who has two thumbs and is an arrogant prick?
Day late and a dollar short I know, but the "Aerosmith way" wouldn't happen to be "Don't get mad, get even" would it?
Who has two thumbs and is an arrogant prick?
What's the Van Halen way?
What's the Van Halen way?Day late and a dollar short I know, but the "Aerosmith way" wouldn't happen to be "Don't get mad, get even" would it?
Who has two thumbs and is an arrogant prick?
Fire your best members and live off their contributions?
Eh coming in late but cheating is a no-no. Live by the Long Sword, Die by the Dice.
@Lilithsthrall: Sorry sunshine, but I'd tell you to pack up your dice and go home rather than risk offending the rest of my players by letting you fudge your way to victory. Rules are there to be played within, not to be discarded for 'the sake of the game' or to 'save the party from a TPK'. If the Players all die, then that is their own problem to deal with and will hopefully remember the feeling of being wiped out to the last man with their next characters, to remember it's good to have at least two basic escape plans worked out in advance, even if it is all just pile on the Wizard while he casts Teleport back to the tavern, toss down a pile of caltrops and a Grease spell and run like all Hell or some other tactic or trick that can get the PCs out of immediate harm's way so they can regroup, heal and if necessary, get the hell out of dodge. If the enemy can run away and live to fight another day, so can the players.
I'm sorry if I come across as highly combative but just ... you come into the thread and start to mouth off at another poster who had not said so much as boo to you. Please power down, drop out of Greater Rage, quit channeling Rovagyg, whatever floats your boat but please be a little less 'Soccer Fan' when dealing with other players and maybe you'll have a little more fun on these boards.
@ Cheaters: God you people irritate me. People who insist on using seven different credit cards to pay for a handful of cheap, homebrand items in the express lane and then want their Frequent Flyers Points, all during rush-hour when everyone is trying to get their shopping and go home, do not reach the level of irritation someone who cheats, at anything, incites in my soul. Surely we're all mature enough to realise that winning all the time is boring and becomes pointless? That we're there to play a co-operative game, both collective story-telling and door-kicking-down Dragon-slaying loot-stealing types? I think we've all had to grit our teeth at a gamer who fudges a roll or three, and we spend the next few weeks with it slowly souring the game as everyone knows that the only reason the group got their magic artefact or saved the village is because Bob the Bastard's 'Lucky D20' has some lead pellets inserted into one of the faces and nobody wants to break up the group and admit it.
Cheating is a poison in the game, slowly sapping the players and GM/DM's enjoyment of the past-time as everyone starts doubting their friends motives in co-operative playing if all someone/everyone is going to do is roll loaded/shaved dice or pull other similar tricks. If 'cheating' if your way of succeeding in the game, then put down the dice and pick up the game controller, because the table-top game isn't designed for cheating to be an acceptable method, wherein Computer Games often have built-in cheat codes for the 'must win at all costs' mentality. I'd rather have my character die than let a fellow gamer fudge a roll to save him, and have done so a few times when a player who is now no longer a member of our group (same whacko who ran a magnet over my hard-drive and slagged several years worth of data on our previous campaigns and my homebrews.) tried the same sort of garbage the OP is dealing with, the 'blink-and-you-miss-it' rolling that prevents anyone else from seeing exactly how the damn dice rolled.
In short, the argument has too many variables to be argued diffinitively one way ot the other without agreeing on ground rules. So LT is just as correct AND incorrect as HalfOrc since they are arguing from different moral theories.
Or, since the OP viewed it as a problem, then it's a problem. :)
Cheating is bad mmmkay...
I only point this out because, Kantian or Millian, deductivist moral theories rely on guiding principles and application thereof. Emotional judgements based on past experience smacks of non-deductivist moral theory, which generally is incompatiable with deductivist theory.
O.O
Yikes, I didn't realize I needed a PhD to follow a debate on a forum about a role-playing-game.
You do realize that a good chunk of folks on these boards aren't going to have the foggiest about what you just said, right?
I'm not trying to be confrontational here, mind you. I consider myself a fairly intelligent guy, and while I kind of got the gist of your point, most of it was lost amidst the avalanche of (to most people I'd wager) pseudo-intellectual wording.
Not that I'm saying you're not intelligent... just realize that talking about deductivist theories and whatnot is going to get you mostly blank stares if you did it to random people on the streets...
Now watch, I'm going to get a plethora of replies saying that they understood everything you wrote. Heh, it goes without saying that you just can't win on a forum. Ah well. :-)
Really? I remember studying Kant, Mill, and the differences between Consequentalism and Deontology in middle school. 7th grade, to be precise. My bad.You do realize that a good chunk of folks on these boards aren't going to have the foggiest about what you just said, right?
That's some middle school you went to then... we were starting to learn about our state's basic history in the middle school I went to. If you're serious, that can't be common.
Then again, if you're younger I can't say what middle schools have been teaching kids past 1991 or so. If they have since then been teaching what sounds like advanced college courses in middle school, I'm absolutely floored.
You do realize that a good chunk of folks on these boards aren't going to have the foggiest about what you just said, right?
That's why he did it. I'd expand on the psychology behind such an action, but then I'd be doing the same.
|
Stuff
It doesn't matter, none of that does. It's a simple matter of benefit versus cost. The benefit is trivial, the potential downside is pretty significant, potentially getting booted from a game group, getting the reputation as a cheater in the local gaming community, possible loss of friends. That's all worst case scenario though, obviously you know your group better than I do. I suspect at organized play cheating is far less prevalent because the perceived downside is much higher.
In a way it's like stealing from work, the payoff is generally not worth the loss of your career and potential jail time.
Either that, or I assumed this would be common knowledge. I mean, I DID just bring up the two single most famous ethical philosophers in modern times (Mill and Kant).You do realize that a good chunk of folks on these boards aren't going to have the foggiest about what you just said, right?That's why he did it. I'd expand on the psychology behind such an action, but then I'd be doing the same.
I would like to again point out that the point of my post was not to antagonize Mirror, Mirror... but to point out that it may not be the common knowledge to the layman gamer (and we are many) that he thought it might be. If my post came off as brusque or confrontational, that really wasn't my intent and I apologize.
Personally? I had never heard of Mill and Kant before reading this thread. Then again, I've never had any reason to care to know anything about philosophy outside of my own personal theories and opinions, so it's not surprising that I had no knowledge of them. I likewise couldn't tell you who the top physicists in the modern world are... but I could tell you about jewelry fabrication, since that's my interest and what I went to school for.
I agree with HalfOrcHeavyMetal.
I been following this thread for a while and it is quite amazing how cheaters rationalize their cheating and tell other people that it is ok. The norm is that cheating is bad regardless if it during a gaming session, fudging on your taxes, not paying for something at a store when the cashier forgets to ring it, and other ways of taking advantage of someone through a lie or deception. It shows that you lack honesty and integrity. And, when you cheat someone and they find out, their natural reaction is anger and their distrust of you. When it involves money or items, it's a crime. Go figure! The funny part is that most cheaters don't like being cheated against.
Now if you play a game where everyone agrees that the dice rolls don't matter to the game, then I guess in a sense there is no cheating going on, but why use dice then? If the dice can be overriden at any moment, why bother rolling? Kinda senseless. Use a system that is better suited for your group. There are probably a few diceless systems out there that will meet your needs.
IMO, the only person in your gaming group that should be allowed to fudge rolls is the DM. He is responsible to make the game fun for everyone, and if he misjudges things, he should have to power to correct his mistakes and be allowed to fudge a roll once in a while to make his game better for the group as a whole. However, players should never cheat. It causes problems and it always will. Numerous other people on this thread have told the OP how to handle the situation so there is nothing I can really add to it. Though I do really enjoy Mr. Fishy's motto!! I wonder what kind of stick he uses!! ;)
If as a DM you are concerned about your players constantly rolling crappy or rolled that "1" at the worse possible moment during your game, there are several systems out there that use action and heroic points that allow your players to save themselves from their poor-rolling dice skills. I used one in my games and it helps reduce the "1s" and fail rolls that my players roll plenty of.
The only time cheating would be ok is if you are playing a game like Munchkin where everybody is expected to cheat.
As a DM, if I am having to fudge rolls, it means I have made a grave mistake, and am quietly trying to fix a mistake I made. If a DM is doing a good job of matching the encounters to the party, then they should never have to fudge dice rolls.
The only time cheating would be ok is if you are playing a game like Munchkin where everybody is expected to cheat.
Does playing a card called cheat actually count as cheating? Or using the loaded dice card? An interesting philosophical question. Is it still cheating if the game tells you to do it?
As a DM, if I am having to fudge rolls, it means I have made a grave mistake, and am quietly trying to fix a mistake I made. If a DM is doing a good job of matching the encounters to the party, then they should never have to fudge dice rolls.So, if the player has made a grave mistake, and is fudging rolls to quietly fix the mistake, why is that so very different from the DM doing it? Why is what's good for the goose not good for the gander?
Because the moment you step behind the dm screen you are magically transformed into a more intelligent, more mature, and all around better person. Isnt that obvious?
As a DM, if I am having to fudge rolls, it means I have made a grave mistake, and am quietly trying to fix a mistake I made. If a DM is doing a good job of matching the encounters to the party, then they should never have to fudge dice rolls.So, if the player has made a grave mistake, and is fudging rolls to quietly fix the mistake, why is that so very different from the DM doing it? Why is what's good for the goose not good for the gander?
The biggest difference is that, by the normal social contracts, a DM is allowed to cheat. Rule Zero says that DMs can change the rules at their whim.
The standard social contract also says that players should be on a relatively even playing field. Cheating is not the only way to break this. A DM who is giving special favors to their significant other at the gaming table is also breaking this contract. A great way to piss off a group of level 5 players is to put a +5 holy avenger into a treasure trove when you wife is the one playing a paladin. Sit back and watch the fireworks ensue.
DM Fiat is a double edge sword. A DM who abuses it will find themselves alone at the table.
Does playing a card called cheat actually count as cheating? Or using the loaded dice card? An interesting philosophical question. Is it still cheating if the game tells you to do it?The only time cheating would be ok is if you are playing a game like Munchkin where everybody is expected to cheat.
Using those cards isn't, but swiping cards off the draw or discard pile when no one is looking is technically cheating. Of course, cheating in Munchkin is a relative thing.
The biggest difference is that, by the normal social contracts, a DM is allowed to cheat. Rule Zero says that DMs can change the rules at their whim.The standard social contract also says that players should be on a relatively even playing field. Cheating is not the only way to break this. A DM who is giving special favors to their significant other at the gaming table is also breaking this contract.
DM Fiat is a double edge sword. A DM who abuses it will find themselves alone at the table.
So who says the social contract cant be changed? Who says a player cannot cheat in ORDER TO LEVEL THE PLAYING field (for instance cheat against themselves). I fully agree this is a rare and unlikely situation, and I am only speaking against those who talk in absolutes that fudging is ALWAYS wrong and done by immature, insecure, and generally bad people. I do not believe that is the case.
So who says the social contract cant be changed? Who says a player cannot cheat in ORDER TO LEVEL THE PLAYING field (for instance cheat against themselves). I fully agree this is a rare and unlikely situation, and I am only speaking against those who talk in absolutes that fudging is ALWAYS wrong and done by immature, insecure, and generally bad people. I do not believe that is the case.
The biggest difference is that, by the normal social contracts, a DM is allowed to cheat. Rule Zero says that DMs can change the rules at their whim.The standard social contract also says that players should be on a relatively even playing field. Cheating is not the only way to break this. A DM who is giving special favors to their significant other at the gaming table is also breaking this contract.
DM Fiat is a double edge sword. A DM who abuses it will find themselves alone at the table.
If a DM is expected to fudge rolls for the good of the game, is it really cheating when they do it?
I talk in absolutes, but only because I draw the beginning of the gray area in a different place.
Cheating is always bad.
Fudging rolls is not always cheating.
Cheating is when you break the social contract of what defines "fair" play for your particular group.
So, if the player has made a grave mistake, and is fudging rolls to quietly fix the mistake, why is that so very different from the DM doing it? Why is what's good for the goose not good for the gander?
A fudge to rectify a DM's own mistake is probably for the good of the party (selfless).
The player's fudge to rectify his own mistake is probably for his own good (selfish).
|
I too have been Gaming for longer than I care to confess. This has happened to me just twice.
My solution was thus:
1. All die rolls need a witness, either GM or trusted player.
2. Every third crit. is divided by the multiplier. i.e. if you crit. w/ a battleaxe I divide by three and apply only that damage from you.
These worked well for me , as the player either stopped cheating or the others monitored him.
As for init. rolls, you either can once in a while let the bad guys roll exceptional against him only, or have something action altering happen after his roll.
If a DM is expected to fudge rolls for the good of the game, is it really cheating when they do it?
I talk in absolutes, but only because I draw the beginning of the gray area in a different place.
Cheating is always bad.
Fudging rolls is not always cheating.Cheating is when you break the social contract of what defines "fair" play for your particular group.
So why is it impossible for a player to fudge rolls for the good of the game?
Therefore, when a player fudges to help another, or the party, is is selfish or selfless?
Only the DM can answer that... but he cannot answer it when it happens surreptitiously.
I would also like to point out that perhaps a small degree of "OH SH!T" moments happen in gaming, and that maybe the DM might welcome elements of this being interjected into the story. It would also be player hubris, stemming from cheating, to withhold these kinds of random or unforseen developments from adding a new spicy element to the DM's story.
Therefore, when a player fudges to help another, or the party, is is selfish or selfless?Only the DM can answer that... but he cannot answer it when it happens surreptitiously.
I would also like to point out that perhaps a small degree of "OH SH!T" moments happen in gaming, and that maybe the DM might welcome elements of this being interjected into the story. It would also be player hubris, stemming from cheating, to withhold these kinds of random or unforseen developments from adding a new spicy element to the DM's story.
But why can only the dm answer this? Why is his judgement greater then his fellow players in all situations? Is it the case that at your table the dm is always the wisest, most calm collected and has the best judgement? We are all human beings, some more or less capable then others, some equally so. Why is it that there is a grand divide that prevents the player from recognizing an act that might benefit the group as a whole and undertaking it?
As for the random moments certainly they are part of the game. And i would not advise depriving the group against them. But there are also clear and present situations that can be deduced by the situation at hand, and knowledge of your friends (the other players and the dm) and one can realize these are bad situations and take an action that increases the fun of other people at the table that is outside the rules of the game.
As for the even playing field, that lies the way of madness. Some games use rolled stats, which introduces inequities. Some people are just lucky, some make better character decisions, some have more experience, some slavishly adhere to CharOp guides regardless of the campatibility with the campaign, some play casters in low-magic low-level settings, etc. All this introduces inequities. The classes themselves are inherrently unequal. Nothing about this game really says "player parity". 4th Ed this is not.
Not really. Notice i said relatively even. As long as every player has the same opportunities to excel. Equality is not about making sure that everyone achieves the sames results, equality is about making sure everyone has the same opportunities.
Every player can choose to play <insert class you think is OP>.Every player determines their stats by the same rules.
Every player plays by the same set of rules.
At the end of the day, the player with 15 years of min maxing experience is going to end up with a better character than the guy who just started last week. Still, the important thing is that the new guy have the same opportunities as the veteran.
Even playing field is important, but no one is expecting you to rig it so that the score is tied at the end of the game.