RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Did you then read it again before you played? lolOops, I've played scenarios that I'd already GM'd. I guess I'm a shameful cheater.Player admits to reading the scenario before sitting down to play it. Cool or not cool?It is cheating. A shameful display.
I don't understand what difference that makes, except perhaps to help you backpedal.
Although, I am reminded of a particular time when I prepped a scenario to run, but when I got there one of my players realized he'd already played it. Since I hadn't played it yet, I offered to switch places with him, letting him use my materials to run it while I played, so everyone who showed up for an afternoon of gaming could do so.
Per your earlier statement, that's another example of a shameful display of cheating.
|
If this is a problem for you, for whatever reason, my understanding of the rules is that you have the following recourse.1) You may NOT refuse to GM a particular player. However...
Actually, the guide is pretty clear that you can:
Some GMs may not
be comfortable running an adventure for players who
have foreknowledge of what is to come. If your GM is
not comfortable with you replaying a scenario, the GM
has the right to deny players the opportunity to replay
a scenario for any reason.
I stand corrected.
|
|
Easy Jiggy - it *would be* a display of cheating if they read it purely with the intention of playing it. Shameful if they admitted to it purely to bypass the strict reading of cheating.
As much as I and most of us recognize that there needs to be flexibility in regards to reading/GM'ing then playing or replaying, we do need to be vigilant that doing so with full intent to play is indeed cheating, whether hidden or admitted. I don't want to start playing with a whole class of players (however small) who read every scenario they play beforehand and simply "inform the GM" to get around the issue.
For the OP - I doubt the player was intending to play when they read the scenario - probably just curious. Cheaters tend not to admit it when they can still be denied what they want.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
It's not cheating.It's still not cool. As I see it, if it happens, it clearly falls into an organisational failure, up there with running scenarios cold. It can generally be avoided with good regional coordination.
Out of the 110 or so tables I've ran, four of the worst five tables have had at least one person who had read the scenario previously on it. This may be a coincidence.
If this is a problem for you, for whatever reason, my understanding of the rules is that you have the following recourse.1) You may NOT refuse to GM a particular player. However...
Actually, the guide is pretty clear that you can:
Some GMs may not
be comfortable running an adventure for players who
have foreknowledge of what is to come. If your GM is
not comfortable with you replaying a scenario, the GM
has the right to deny players the opportunity to replay
a scenario for any reason.
Actually being a bit anal about it, the text mentions that a GM is allowed to feel uncomfortable when a player has foreknowledge of the adventure. But he can only refuse if the player is actually replaying it, just having read the scenario in question does not constitute replaying... right?
Of course the RAI is pretty clear here.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Easy Jiggy - it *would be* a display of cheating if they read it purely with the intention of playing it. Shameful if they admitted to it purely to bypass the strict reading of cheating.
That's kind of the point. There are all kinds of good reasons that a player might already know the scenario they're playing, so if your only data point is that the player has read the scenario, a reasonable person cannot infer that the player is in fact cheating - they'd need to get more information to make such a judgment.
That's why I called out DM Under the Bridge - he was willing to condemn someone with no other data than that he'd read the scenario. Notice how I made no such call-outs to the many people who asked for more information instead of just assuming the worst.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And by golly does that irk some people. I wish I actually was a metagaming cheatbag so the backlash wouldn't bother so much. I don't understand what's so damn bothersome about spoiling my own fun. It's just my session that's being ruined, ok?
Except that it's not. By reading ahead when you didn't "need" to, you give yourself knowledge that you have to then somehow avoid using. Often that results in you not participating in decision making (because you know which door has the trap, or which clues are red herrings), or avoiding speaking to an NPC (because you know the right thing to say to get their help or to trigger a specific clue). If you hadn't pre-read, you would be able to participate more fully in the adventure, which is to everyone's benefit.
|
|
And by golly does that irk some people. I wish I actually was a metagaming cheatbag so the backlash wouldn't bother so much. I don't understand what's so damn bothersome about spoiling my own fun. It's just my session that's being ruined, ok?Except that it's not. By reading ahead when you didn't "need" to, you give yourself knowledge that you have to then somehow avoid using. Often that results in you not participating in decision making (because you know which door has the trap, or which clues are red herrings), or avoiding speaking to an NPC (because you know the right thing to say to get their help or to trigger a specific clue). If you hadn't pre-read, you would be able to participate more fully in the adventure, which is to everyone's benefit.
This is actually a good point that I had not considered before.
|
|
And by golly does that irk some people. I wish I actually was a metagaming cheatbag so the backlash wouldn't bother so much. I don't understand what's so damn bothersome about spoiling my own fun. It's just my session that's being ruined, ok?Except that it's not. By reading ahead when you didn't "need" to, you give yourself knowledge that you have to then somehow avoid using. Often that results in you not participating in decision making (because you know which door has the trap, or which clues are red herrings), or avoiding speaking to an NPC (because you know the right thing to say to get their help or to trigger a specific clue). If you hadn't pre-read, you would be able to participate more fully in the adventure, which is to everyone's benefit.
This can be especially bad when there are puzzles to solve. The puzzles are written with the expectation of 4+ players bouncing ideas off each other and having fewer players can really slow down things or stall them completely.
I agree. If buddy is reading it for no good reason. Then he’s bringing the table down. Poor teamwork and unsportsmanlike.
|
|
Unknown reason as to why he read it before hand. He has extremely limited GMing experience to my knowledge so I doubt it was for GM prep.
Well, in this instance, it's reasonable to assume he simply wanted foreknowledge of the scenario. Perhaps he wanted to see if it "fit" his character - who knows. But it's cheating, flat-out.
That said, PFS obviously does allow people with foreknowledge to play the game - namely, those who've GMed it or (in less common circumstances) will be GMing it soon, and just had to read it already (maybe they're running it tomorrow). Now, there are GM-star replayers as well. The Guide is pretty strict that these players have to play "dumb".
I'd prefer the person simply not play at my table - I loathe a cheat - but if somehow that wasn't an option, I'd completely forbid any kind of in-scenario prep (no purchases), disallow spell selections and other preparations which implied a knowledge of the scenario, and simply block any attempt to use knowledge of the scenario ("nope, there's no secret door in this room" "No, the cleric has no wands on him - why do you ask?") If this inconveniences the other players, I'd make sure they understood that it was a consequence of someone having read the scenario.
Cheating needs to be shameful. It really needs to be harshly punished, but the nature of PFS makes that challenging (it's hard to really ban someone from play, for example). I've seen Organized Play campaign in which it became "the culture" (Living Forgotten Realms) to seek out scenarios with favorable items and so on based on foreknowledge, and that's a very slippery place. LFR was so bad that people would publish spoiler lists of scenarios with listed items and boons so that folks could plan their farms (oops, I mean play schedule) accordingly.
I certainly hope this new player at least felt stupid, if not embarrassed.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh. I just read a post in which a GM declares he hates cheating so much that if he thinks a player is cheating he'll just cheat right back by modifying/lying about the scenario. What an... interesting perspective.
How about instead of that, we first differentiate between having foreknowledge and abusing foreknowledge, and recognize that only the latter is actually cheating. Then, how about when actual cheating genuinely occurs, we acknowledge that calling someone out for their cheating is the adult thing to do while engaging in retaliatory cheating is what kindergarteners do.
Cheating is definitely shameful and needs to be handled decisively. But let's be honest about exactly what is and is not cheating, and be better than the cheater in our response.
EDIT: It's also interesting to me that every time a thread comes up about a GM whom a player thinks might have gotten something wrong and the word "cheat" gets mentioned even once, throngs of people jump in with "Whoa whoa whoa, let's not throw around the 'c-word' so lightly!", but when the accused isn't the GM, "cheating" can be the entire focus of the conversation (and even be in the title) and no one bats an eye or cautions anyone against using such a strong word.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cheating needs to be shameful. It really needs to be harshly punished, but the nature of PFS makes that challenging (it's hard to really ban someone from play, for example).No, it is actually quite easy. We've banned people here in Phoenix before.
Same here in the Twin Cities. It's not hard to say "If you cheat again, you're gone."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine the larger your player base the easier it is to kick players out of your group.
This is probably a true statement. But in most cases, you will have a healthier game group if you don't let blatant cheaters play. Even if that means you can't play some weeks because one or two people aren't available.
|
|
And by golly does that irk some people. I wish I actually was a metagaming cheatbag so the backlash wouldn't bother so much. I don't understand what's so damn bothersome about spoiling my own fun. It's just my session that's being ruined, ok?Except that it's not. By reading ahead when you didn't "need" to, you give yourself knowledge that you have to then somehow avoid using. Often that results in you not participating in decision making (because you know which door has the trap, or which clues are red herrings), or avoiding speaking to an NPC (because you know the right thing to say to get their help or to trigger a specific clue). If you hadn't pre-read, you would be able to participate more fully in the adventure, which is to everyone's benefit.
This can be especially bad when there are puzzles to solve. The puzzles are written with the expectation of 4+ players bouncing ideas off each other and having fewer players can really slow down things or stall them completely.
as for puzzles, let others do them, and if the player knows that answer, solve the puzzle after he/she let others give it a try who hasn't read the senario. As for puzzles that require multiple people, just go along and don't take the lead.
Hey people have been playing for so long that they know the bestiary by heart. Does that mean they shouldn't play spellcasters because they could get around every resistance and target every weakness? no I think not.
Did you then read it again before you played? lolOops, I've played scenarios that I'd already GM'd. I guess I'm a shameful cheater.Player admits to reading the scenario before sitting down to play it. Cool or not cool?It is cheating. A shameful display.I don't understand what difference that makes, except perhaps to help you backpedal.
Although, I am reminded of a particular time when I prepped a scenario to run, but when I got there one of my players realized he'd already played it. Since I hadn't played it yet, I offered to switch places with him, letting him use my materials to run it while I played, so everyone who showed up for an afternoon of gaming could do so.
Per your earlier statement, that's another example of a shameful display of cheating.
No peddling here Jiggy. If they read it to get knowledge they shouldn't have, and to be completely prepared for everything (on dungeon 3, two levels down, there is a trap in that square next to the red door), of course they are cheating. If they ran it some months back, and don't look at it before they play, and play as if they didn't read it, of course they are being honest.
One position is dishonest, one is honest. Of course my stance is shaped by encountering those that read ahead on adventures to get an advantage.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: It's also interesting to me that every time a thread comes up about a GM whom a player thinks might have gotten something wrong and the word "cheat" gets mentioned even once, throngs of people jump in with "Whoa whoa whoa, let's not throw around the 'c-word' so lightly!", but when the accused isn't the GM, "cheating" can be the entire focus of the conversation (and even be in the title) and no one bats an eye or cautions anyone against using such a strong word.
It looks like its a double standard, but I think those are entirely different situations.
If the player has foreknowledge of the scenario and abuses it, it's likely going to be at least somewhat obvious. And whatever they do during the game, their actions are all there, layed out on the table for all to see.
With a GM on the other hand, assuming none of the players have foreknowledge, the players have no way of knowing what is by the book and what the GM might have made up on the fly. So they may think something is fishy because of what happened, but cant ever get confirmation on it unless they either read the scenario themselves or ask other people questions about it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think you missed what I was talking about. Regardless of whether the person under scrutiny is a GM or a player, this community actually does a pretty consistent job (overall) of sussing out whether there might be a legitimate reason for the action in question. (Hooray! Everyone give yourselves a pat on the back!)
What I was talking about is how those discussions are executed. If the word "cheat" is never mentioned, both discussions pan out about the same. But if the word "cheat" is used and the subject is a GM, a whole chorus of people chime in with "Now there's no need to use such a strong word, it only fosters bad feelings and division within in the community and makes the person feel attacked and let's not demonize this person and..." Heck, even if the eventual conclusion of the discussion *IS* that the GM cheated (however rare that may be), folks will still get chastised if that's the word they use to say it. But drop the "c-word" when a player is being looked at, and nobody even blinks; the discussion just continues on as normal. Is the word somehow less likely to foster bad feelings or cause divisions in the community when directed at a player rather than a GM? Are players somehow less likely than GMs to feel attacked or demonized when their suspicious behavior is described (even tentatively) with the word "cheat"?
That is what I was talking about; not who cheats more or who gets accused more or anything like that, but rather who we're supposed to talk plainly about and who we're supposed to tiptoe for.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are all (or at least can be) GMs and we are all players. There need not be a distinction in my opinion. You either follow the rules or you do not. Its the same player either way. If you are going to cheat, you are probably going to cheat no matter which side of the GM screen you are on.
Intention is everything when talking about whether something is cheating or not.
|
|
I think you missed what I was talking about. Regardless of whether the person under scrutiny is a GM or a player, this community actually does a pretty consistent job (overall) of sussing out whether there might be a legitimate reason for the action in question. (Hooray! Everyone give yourselves a pat on the back!)
What I was talking about is how those discussions are executed. If the word "cheat" is never mentioned, both discussions pan out about the same. But if the word "cheat" is used and the subject is a GM, a whole chorus of people chime in with "Now there's no need to use such a strong word, it only fosters bad feelings and division within in the community and makes the person feel attacked and let's not demonize this person and..." Heck, even if the eventual conclusion of the discussion *IS* that the GM cheated (however rare that may be), folks will still get chastised if that's the word they use to say it. But drop the "c-word" when a player is being looked at, and nobody even blinks; the discussion just continues on as normal. Is the word somehow less likely to foster bad feelings or cause divisions in the community when directed at a player rather than a GM? Are players somehow less likely than GMs to feel attacked or demonized when their suspicious behavior is described (even tentatively) with the word "cheat"?
That is what I was talking about; not who cheats more or who gets accused more or anything like that, but rather who we're supposed to talk plainly about and who we're supposed to tiptoe for.
Gotcha.
Maybe its along the lines of not wanting to make the GM upset, since the percentage of the population that runs games rather than just playing is likely relatively small, so scaring off a GM, especially a quality one, is a bigger deal than scaring off a single player. *shrug*
Personally, I dont scare players off by accusing them of cheating. I scare them off by killing PCs.
:P
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Yeah, but isn't it kind of weird to think that a GM would be scared off by being talked about in the same manner they were already being talked about back when they were still just a player? Are we assuming that GMs somehow become more sensitive when they start GMing than they were before? Or maybe we'd have more good GMs if players' feelings were more considered; perhaps they'd feel more secure transitioning to the role of GM if they were already being given some grace when they were just another face in the crowd. If you're just a participant, and nobody blinks when someone says you might have been cheating, perhaps that makes the idea of getting more invested seem unappealing and directly contributes to that smaller percentage you mentioned?
I dunno, that's all just speculation. There's any number of things that could be extrapolated from the difference in how we handle our GMs/players; I was originally just observing that the difference exists.
|
|
I think part of the issue is that a GM has far more opportunitiy to do something that may be inadvertently perceived as cheating. Between legitimately making a mistake, ruling on unclear matters, running as written when the scenario cheats and running correctly when the bad guy has a strange power there are just lots of chances.
Combine that with the fact that most regular posters are GMs (stars show that) and I think its understandable that you have a community loathe to cry "cheat" on GMs.
In this specific thread, it is a very rare experienced GM that hasn't played scenarios they've already run. So we all know the issues from both sides of the GM screen
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think part of the issue is that a GM has far more opportunitiy to do something that may be inadvertently perceived as cheating.
You think that's part of the issue of whether the discussion can include the word "cheat" or needs to use a softer synonym? I don't understand why a difference in likelihood of one party or the other cheating would have any bearing on the appropriate terminology for describing that theoretical possibility.
Or perhaps you misunderstood what I was talking about in the same way Seth did, thinking I was referring to a difference in willingness to declare a verdict on someone's action, when in reality I was referring to the difference in allowed vocabulary.
|
|
Heh :) When I ran Pathfinder Society Scenario #5–11: Library of the Lion (by John Compton & Kyle Elliot) as a PbP, this guy sent me a PM saying he had 'some knowledge' of the scenario.
Ha! That is pretty hilarious.
|
|
I have skimmed through a mass of numerous scenarios, looking for the one I want to run.
I usually am a player though, and even though I might remember something about a particular scenario, I don't think I would ever consider myself a "cheater".
I don't think most people consider themselves a cheater regardless of what they do. There's a way to justify anything to yourself if you try hard enough.
|
|
I don't think most people consider themselves a cheater regardless of what they do. There's a way to justify anything to yourself if you try hard enough.I have skimmed through a mass of numerous scenarios, looking for the one I want to run.
I usually am a player though, and even though I might remember something about a particular scenario, I don't think I would ever consider myself a "cheater".
I don't think I am doing anything like that.
Are we all supposed to never read a scenario, until the exact moment prior to running it?
If we prepare to run a scenario, and things don't work out, are we to never play that scenario, even though we never actually ran it, or played through it?
I mean, sitting, and reading through a scenario, right before you know you are playing through it, is a jerk move, but having skimmed through a scenario in the past, is not really not the same.
Can you imagine, someone saying: "I may, or may not, have skimmed through this scenario in the past. I cannot remember, but due to the possibility, I cannot play."
That is just a silly amount of restriction, if that is the presumed default method of approaching the situation.
|
|
I don't think most people consider themselves a cheater regardless of what they do. There's a way to justify anything to yourself if you try hard enough.I have skimmed through a mass of numerous scenarios, looking for the one I want to run.
I usually am a player though, and even though I might remember something about a particular scenario, I don't think I would ever consider myself a "cheater".
I don't think I am doing anything like that.
Are we all supposed to never read a scenario, until the exact moment prior to running it?
If we prepare to run a scenario, and things don't work out, are we to never play that scenario, even though we never actually ran it, or played through it?
I mean, sitting, and reading through a scenario, right before you know you are playing through it, is a jerk move, but having skimmed through a scenario in the past, is not really not the same.
Can you imagine, someone saying: "I may, or may not, have skimmed through this scenario in the past. I cannot remember, but due to the possibility, I cannot play."
That is just a silly amount of restriction, if that is the presumed default method of approaching the situation.
I'm not suggesting any such thing. I've played several scenarios after GMing them. I far prefer the reverse; I don't particularly enjoy being unable to contribute to group decisions or standing idly by as we fail secondary success conditions.
All I was saying is I think very few people regard what they do as cheating. The same way people justify software or music piracy (). Again, not implying what you're doing is wrong. Just saying I don't think many people think what they're doing is wrong, a psychological necessity to avoid any guilt for their actions.
If someone wants to read the scenario before he plays it, I can't stop him, nor do I care to. And if the GM notices his door-busting PC hanging back outside the room with the Phantasmal Killer haunt, she can tell that player to kindly stop meta-gaming. If he doesn't tell the GM beforehand, well, that is cheating, which is to say against the rules laid out in the Guide.
|
as a secondary gm for our group i have prepped probably 12-14 scenarios that i haven't run due to table size consideration. On the few times i have gone to play the scenario i have let gm know i prepped it and really tried to act in char. not sure if this is what the op is talking about but there are legit reasons that someone has read a scenario before running
|
If I have read something, and gmed it my list goes
1:Inform the Gm
2: Inform the Gm i will be drinking and or doing nothing when the party is doing talky encounters unless I have to roll for them if I wind up the party face [DAS CLERIK BARREL]
3: Do my best to not try to remeber what is going on
4: Depending on where we are actually take a few shots and just chill out offer character thoughts when asked but not talk out of character the entire time
Number 4 REALLY helps with meta gaming, specially when your playing a 7int barbarian
|
|
I just read this entire thread and a small part of my GM spirit died!
Players sometimes cheat. GM's sometimes make mistakes. Neither causes the world to stop spinning. If reading a scenario before hand is something you really can't stand- make a note of it and advise your players and the Event Organizer before hand. Other than the issues with replays or GM first-plays, it isn't that big of a deal just to ask your players not to read them.
AND IF THEY DO... Improvise. Nothing calls out a cheater more than when you change a piece of loot (by putting it on another NPC) or moving a trap location. A moved trap can sometimes take care of the problem for you <evil smile>.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I appreciate the frustration that Player vs. Character knowledge can cause a GM (especially with veteran players at the table), it's really hard to regulate. In fact, this can become an abusive Player vs GM thing going the other way. The GM all of a sudden won't let you throw holy water at walking skeleton because "you don't KNOW it's undead", or use an oil of magic weapon because your weapon won't hurt a monster "you don't KNOW it has DR/magic".
Remember that even an 11 INT fighter is still an experienced adventurer, and could argue that certain things are common knowledge. Especially if he's Level X or Level X+5.
+100
While I get that some information should be rare, and reserved for those with specialist knowledge, some things are so common, that the DC should be dropped to below 10, making it auto for anyone not an idiot.
And even some of the DC11+ information is of such importance, that it would be the social duty of those in the know, to inform others.
The whole point of forming communities, is so that the many can benefit from the combined knowledge of all the inhabitants.
Insisting that a PC can only know something if they personally researched it, doesn't make sense.
Specialists do research, so the rest of their community don't have to.
Doesn't mean they can't benefit from the knowledge, if it's laid out in laymen's terms.
If you were the priest in a rural village, and the corpses from a nearby battlefield had a habit of wandering up to your parishioners and eating them, don't you think it would be a good idea to post a warning on the village noticeboard, complete with advice how to fend them off?
Make a little song, so even the kids can remember:
See a skeleton,
Bosh and Bash it.
See a zombie,
Slish and Slash it.
Don't ask the vampire what they want.
Dunk their head, in the font.
|
I make it part of my personal introduction at a PFS table when I GM that my conditions for players playing with foreknowledge is that they are not allowed to suggest courses of action, and if directly solicited for opinions on proposed actions then they are required to have either no opinion or to prefer the option that is already supported by a majority of "unsullied" players. That way they don't spoil the plot and the other players know not to bother trying to get them to spoil the plot.
Those are my terms to play at my table when you have foreknowledge of the scenario. I wouldn't kick someone off the table for a slipup and accidentally blurting something relevant, but if I get the idea that someone is displaying foreknowledge and lied about not having it, I'd have no qualms about booting the player. The rules would back me up if I were to do so.
If you spoil the plot for the table, the GM has the right
to ask you to leave the table.
|
|
I remember playing the midnight mauler. I was expecting to DM it, but two other peopel REALLY wanted to dm it so I asked if it was ok I plyaed. it.
|
|
I just read this entire thread and a small part of my GM spirit died!
Players sometimes cheat. GM's sometimes make mistakes. Neither causes the world to stop spinning. If reading a scenario before hand is something you really can't stand- make a note of it and advise your players and the Event Organizer before hand. Other than the issues with replays or GM first-plays, it isn't that big of a deal just to ask your players not to read them.
AND IF THEY DO... Improvise. Nothing calls out a cheater more than when you change a piece of loot (by putting it on another NPC) or moving a trap location. A moved trap can sometimes take care of the problem for you <evil smile>.
This is NOT PFS legal, the rules clearly state you must run the scenario As Written. The only thing you can change is when PCs invalidate an NPCs Tactics you can modify the tactics.
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources. Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, stats, traits, or weapons. However, if the actions of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should consider whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience.