Do not encourage cheating


Pathfinder Society

51 to 72 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain aka TwilightKnight

11 people marked this as a favorite.

I have heard rumors that some are taking this thread to mean "shut up" if you have a dissenting voice about the rules. Nothing is further than the truth. What Mike (and others) are saying is that while you have the right to object to the RAW and to discuss how things could be different, you DO NOT have the right to ignore them, do what you want, and then essentially brag about in the forums. As players, we do not have the power to follow the rules we like and ignore the ones we don't. If you think something is wrong, start a thread, explain why, and this is important, what you think can be done to correct it. There have been many rule changes that resulted from discussions in the forums. The word "cheating" has a very serious connotation, but what else would you call it? Either you are following the rules or you aren't. Package it however you want, but in the end, it just boils down to that question.

Before you peg me some kind of jack-booted enforcer for the PFS gestapo, I happen to agree with arguments to change some of the rules. After-all, I am a player too and would like things "my way." However, until such changes occur, we are all bound by the rules of the society. Some will say it is a harsh stance, but either play by the rules or play something else.

EDIT--One more thing, despite what anyone may have told *you*, the Venture Officers, Mike Brock, and Mark Moreland are always receptive to email if you feel an issue is more appropriate for private discussion.

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

Well said, Bob Jonquet. It's unfortunate when someone lacks the ability to differentiate between disliking a rule and breaking it and therefore interprets any call to cease the latter as a call to cease the former.

Grand Lodge 5/5

As Bob said, I am always receptive to emails or PMs. I had a very good private conversation with Swiftbrook last night about this very thread.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Before you peg me some kind of jack-booted enforcer for the PFS gestapo

That would be me.. ;)

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain aka TwilightKnight

Dragnmoon wrote:
That would be me.. ;)

Quiet you, back in line!

The Exchange

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
That would be me.. ;)
Quiet you, back in line!

HA!

Shadow Lodge

Dragnmoon wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Before you peg me some kind of jack-booted enforcer for the PFS gestapo
That would be me.. ;)

Are you admitting to being a jack-booted enforcer for the PFS gestapo or are you accusing Bob of being one?

Just trying to get the record straight here.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

0gre wrote:
Are you admitting to being a jack-booted enforcer for the PFS gestapo or are you accusing Bob of being one?

I am admitting Bob does not have the Cojones for the job, so I do it... ;)

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain aka TwilightKnight

Dragnmoon wrote:
I am admitting Bob does not have the Cojones for the job, so I do it... ;)

Quiet you or I'll have to employ my 5-star cojones. That's right 3-star, back in line!

Shadow Lodge

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
I am admitting Bob does not have the Cojones for the job, so I do it... ;)
Quiet you or I'll have to employ my 5-star cojones. That's right 3-star, back in line!

Did someone call for an enforcer?

Shadow Lodge

Can't we all just get along?


0gre wrote:
Can't we all just get along?

Silence, you!

Liberty's Edge 5/5

The message I think that is getting lost amongst all this "what if" and "I'm not a cheater, I just wanna provide fun for my players" is this:

  • First and foremost, Follow the Rules.

  • Second, If you choose not to follow the rules, don't come on here and post about how you aren't following the rules. Bad form for you as you are admitting to it.

  • Last, but not least, don't advise other players, and especially new players, on how not to follow the rules. So not only are you admitting to not following the rules, you are trying to help create a culture of those who don't follow the rules.

Moral to this story: Follow the Rules!

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain aka TwilightKnight

Andrew Christian wrote:
Moral to this story: Follow the Rules!

This I can support, but can we do this without throwing around labels like "cheater?"

The word has a much stronger connotation in our community than most. Our very reason for being here is to play games. There can be no higher insult that to call someone a cheater in this context. In all honesty, if someone seriously called me a cheater, and meant it, you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore, because I'd be gone. Whether I was cheating or not.

Silver Crusade

I never call someone a cheater until I feel I can't stand playing with them anymore. At M-Dog recently, I had a dice picker that chose to set next to me as I GM'd. I observed more than once him "report" his rolls to me much higher than actually rolled. After speaking it over with the group minus the cheater while on break on whether I should call him out or not. We decided that it would sour the session to do so, and that living with a dice cheater in this instance was favorable to ruining the session.

I'm still not sure if I made the right call. Some will argue I did, and others will say I didn't. All I know is that 5 players had a good time despite the cheater, and I take that as an overall win, despite allowing the cheater at my table, and the unsettling feeling that I may have made a mistake in my call. Even looking back at it, I can't decide on what the best course would have been.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

Bob Jonquet wrote:
In all honesty, if someone seriously called me a cheater, and meant it, you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore, because I'd be gone. Whether I was cheating or not.

This is how I define a Cheater... Someone who blatantly break the rules for whatever reason that is, normally we see here because they don't like them, then continue to do so even though they know it is wrong and have been told so.

Now if I was certain a person was doing so and I called them a cheater and they left organized play because of that, I would be fine with that.

I hate quoting Mike on this because I am worried about dragging him in... His goal is not for people to leave but to start following the rules...But...

Michael Brock wrote:
If you don't want to follow the rules we have established for Organized Play, then don't play our campaign.

That is how I feel, though I would hope that instead of leaving you would follow the rules, which is what everyone would want.

I would not use the term Cheater, unless I was certain about it.

Edit: And they had absolutely no plans to change their ways..

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Dan Luckett wrote:

I never call someone a cheater until I feel I can't stand playing with them anymore. At M-Dog recently, I had a dice picker that chose to set next to me as I GM'd. I observed more than once him "report" his rolls to me much higher than actually rolled. After speaking it over with the group minus the cheater while on break on whether I should call him out or not. We decided that it would sour the session to do so, and that living with a dice cheater in this instance was favorable to ruining the session.

I'm still not sure if I made the right call. Some will argue I did, and others will say I didn't. All I know is that 5 players had a good time despite the cheater, and I take that as an overall win, despite allowing the cheater at my table, and the unsettling feeling that I may have made a mistake in my call. Even looking back at it, I can't decide on what the best course would have been.

A couple of options:

1) After the session, explain what you saw, and tell him that he either needs to play it straight in the future, or he won't be welcome to sit at your table. Make sure he knows that he has one more chance with you, and it is a make-or-break situation. Then, if he cheats at that next time, never allow him to play with you again, unless and until you hear he has started playing straight.

2) In addition, you have the option of, at this session, and any future sessions he cheats at, of not giving him a Chronicle for the session. Again, explain why he is not getting a Chronicle, and may not receive one for future games he plays with you as GM.

Spoiler:
To be honest, I have had to do this in our area. We had someone who would "drop" a die he was rolling off the table, and then "roll" (place down) another die on a set number when people were looking for his dropped die. He also would, intentionally, use abilities more often than they were designed for (4E, using Dailies as Encounters, and using Encounters as at-wills. Ugly), until he got called out on specific powers.

It was actually a joint decision of several of the local GMs, and discussed before being implemented with the game store owner.

Silver Crusade

Dragnmoon wrote:


That is how I feel, though I would hope that instead of leaving you would follow the rules, which is what everyone would want.

If following the rules is what everyone wants, there would be no need for this thread. I would also kindly ask you to not use the term cheater, as that has an extremely negative connotation. There is a huge difference between someone who adds a pair of goblins to an adventure and someone who lies about dice results. Regardless of how you feel about the actions, can you at least respect each side enough to not call them cheaters?

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
I would also kindly ask you to not use the term cheater, as that has an extremely negative connotation. There is a huge difference between someone who adds a pair of goblins to an adventure and someone who lies about dice results. Regardless of how you feel about the actions, can you at least respect each side enough to not call them cheaters?

If they fall in my definition above as a Cheater, I will use that Term, it is meant to be Negative, if they deserve the negative term I will label them as such.

I do not respect those that fall into my defintion of a Cheater, so no I will not respect them.

Though It would be a term I would be hard pressed to use, unless I was certain it was deserved.

Silver Crusade

Callarek wrote:
Gave advice

That is good advice. I may have to do that next time. He was only someone I see at M-Dog, and I expect I won't see him till next year, but you never know, maybe he'll finally come to one of our normal sessions since we're local to that convention.

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

I think this thread has run its course. I see nothing but flame wars in its future and since we haven't had to remove posts or deal with clearing out flags thus far, I think it best to end this discussion on an up (sic) note.

Mike has made the campaign's stance against encouraging others to ignore or break published rules known in this thread, and a debate about the semantics of the word "cheater" aren't helping anyone improve the campaign.

If anyone has a specific rule they'd like to see changed, so that you may play the way you want while still following the rules of the campaign, feel free to start a new thread discussing that specific rule. As for this thread, it's done.

51 to 72 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Do not encourage cheating All Messageboards