Cheaters & GNS

[Mike Holmes]

I haven't read through all this, so forgive me if I reiterate something. But it seems to me that the phenomena that are under discussion are all about participants grabbing power. Now, this isn't a bad thing under certain social contracts, and often hjust represents functional drift. But it does mean that there is probably a design that exists that distributes power more in a way that pleases the participants without that drift.

If you have a case where both sides want more power than they're getting, then you have dysfunction. These players need to go back to the social contract and decide what sort of distribuation they want as a group. And then find a system that delivers it.

Mike

[Valamir]

Ralph,

The reason words like fudging exist is to make people feel better when they cheat. According to most accepted definitions, all but the most overt and balances types of fudging are cheating. Trying to distance the terms in the way you are seems only to dilute the debate, not to mention evidences a change in your definition from your previous post. While from your perspective there may be no difference in how you used the term, there is a definite subtext which you are incorporating in your response which was not apparent when you first used the term.

This is fundamentally wrong.  In fact, I'd reverse your statement.  That trying to claim cheating is just another form of fudging is merely an attempt to make cheaters appear less unwholesome.

The difference between the two is dramatic, measurable, and defineable.

You are in college.  You are taking a test.  You open the text book to look up an answer.  Either:

a) this behavior is acceptable because its an open book test, meaning the professor, other students are aware of the behavior and have agreed its appropriate.  or

b) its cheating if you are doing it secretly and the professor and other students understand that it is NOT an open book test.


The difference is plain.  One is socially acceptable behavior.  The other will get you a failing grade and potentially expelled.  There is no blurry line.  There is no grey area.  There is right and there is wrong...and there are people who want to do wrong and pretend that it isn't...but it is.  Cheating is negative period, any arguement to the contrary is just spin-control.

Now...is this me on a high horse professing my candidacy for sainthood.  No.  I've cheated in RPGs before.  I've lied about the number rolled.  I've used transparent crystal dice that are impossible to read across the table to make the task easier.  I've pulled the "cocked-die" gimmick.  But I'm not going to sit here and try and say that wasn't cheating.  It was.  It was wrong.  I did it...but it was still cheating.

[Wormwood]

Ralph,

I think we should both drop this issue, it is obvious that what you call fudging, is included in what the other posters are calling cheating, the opposite might not always be the case, so if you use fudging and cheating, in the same way that the other posters are using habitual and non-habitual cheating, it will be mutually understandable. Then we can get to the real discussion.

Thank you for your time,

  -Mendel S.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Ralph and Mendel will have to work some of this stuff out on their own, I think ...

I'm going back to Matt's original question, and here's my take: cheating, as a term, seems to me to indicate that the Social Contract is being broken. This is a Lumpley Principle thing too - if System is the means by which the group agrees upon in-game events, then cheating occurs when someone gets an in-game event to happen when System (which is to say, everyone else's agreed-upon method) says it shouldn't.

By this definition, fudging is not necessarily cheating, specifically, when the group knows that the GM might ignore dice outcomes once in a while, and everyone's OK with that. Plenty of game texts include overt "go ahead and fudge" text in order to encourage that attitude.

I think the discussion went off the rails when "winning" was brought into the picture. Winning is just one goal that can lead people to cheat. It's not the only such goal; for example, wanting to continue to play, when the rules state that character-death makes this impossible.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

There isn't really anything to work out.  You basically said 100% the exact same thing I've been saying.

I really have no interest in engaging in a discussion whose overt goal is to make cheating seem acceptable.  I find the very concept morally reprehensible.

That was not the original goal of the thread, however, I don't believe the goal of the thread can be addressed until everyone is on the same page as to what is being discussed when the word cheating is used.

I refuse to accept any bogus definition that labels fudging as a form of cheating or cheating as a form of fudging.  Its provable nonsense.

Ron, the distinction between fudging and cheating that you outline above is exactly the distinction I was making.  If the ongoing discussion on the topic is going to use this distinction as a starting point than I am happy to continue.  

If not, then I will bow out of the discussion all together because exactly nothing of value can come from conflating the idea of fudging and cheating together.

[Ron Edwards]

Well, the solution is clear:

Matt, what do you think?

Best,
Ron

[Matt Gwinn]

My intention with this thread was to discuss what kind sof games facilitate cheating among players.  GMs fudging die rolls was never an issue to me, as most RPGs clearly grant the GM that power.  I am specifically targeting players and system here.

I don't want to get into the differences between Fudging and Cheating, or whether or not it's a good thing or a bad thing.  

Asuming that a certain level of cheating is acceptable in your group, I'm curious as to whether or not different systems or styles of play make a difference in how often a cheater will cheat.

Going back to Ralph's test annalogy.  An all essay test is far more difficult to cheat on than a multiple choice test.  Just like a game that uses dice is easier to cheat with than a diceless game.

Also, a person who is likely to cheat anyway,  might be more likely to cheat on a particularly difficult test - the chance of failure outweighs the risk of being caught.  While the same person may not cheat on a test he considers easy, or not worth the risk.  Now in both instance the person is the same - it's the test that's different.  So, if an RPG is designed differently, doesn't it stand to reason that the likelyhood of someone cheating will change as well?

,Matt G.

[Mike Holmes]

Asuming that a certain level of cheating is acceptable in your group, I'm curious as to whether or not different systems or styles of play make a difference in how often a cheater will cheat.

It's all about the power distribution. No particular system will promote this more than others. It's when you have players (or GMs) who are not empowered by the system as much as they think they should be that cheating is promoted. Beyond that, it's just a question of a players personal take on cheating.

I for example will cheat a lot to have fun. I'll look for a better system first, but if the only way to have fun with the current system is to cheat, I'll cheat. And/or quit.

Mike

[C. Edwards]

So, if an RPG is designed differently, doesn't it stand to reason that the likelyhood of someone cheating will change as well?

Okay, assuming we're going with the parameter that cheating is a violation of System (per Ron's post above), I don't see cheating becoming more likely for an individual that doesn't already have a penchant for cheating. That is, cheaters may be more likely to cheat but someone who does not cheat will not be moved to cheat. Yes, there are people who do not cheat.

Oh, and sorry about the 'winning' thing, Ron. I meant 'winning' as achieving the outcome that was trying to be reached through cheating.

-Chris

Edited: to add in this thought I had after reading Mike's last post. I don't cheat in a game because I won't violate my internal wall that says "cheating is bad" for something as irrelevant to my survival as playing a recreational game. I actually will not cheat under almost any circumstances. My physical well being would have to be on the line. In this case my sense of self is tied up with not being 'a cheater'. Perhaps in Mike's case (correct me if I'm wrong Mike) he considers the game to be irrelevant enough in the scheme of things that cheating in the game in order to have 'fun' does not challenge his own sense of self?

[Mike Holmes]

Chris,

I'm just a pragmatist. The way I see it, cheating is problematic usually because it goes against the categorical imperative. That is, if you have a fun game, you ruin it for yourself and everyone. So I don't cheat in those situations. That includes losing. I don't cheat to "win".

If a game isn't any fun, if there's no point in playing it, then cheating isn't going to make that any worse. So if I can cheat and make a game worthwhile somehow, I'll do it.

You just have to be careful. If someone else is having fun, and cheating would hurt them, then it's unethical (hence why you can't cheat to win). But fudging is precisely "cheating" to improve the quality of the game for all. That is, if cheating is defined as unethical, then fudging for the right reasons can't be cheating. Context counts.

Mike

[Scratchware]

Ralph,

The reason words like fudging exist is to make people feel better when they cheat. According to most accepted definitions, all but the most overt and balances types of fudging are cheating. Trying to distance the terms in the way you are seems only to dilute the debate, not to mention evidences a change in your definition from your previous post. While from your perspective there may be no difference in how you used the term, there is a definite subtext which you are incorporating in your response which was not apparent when you first used the term.

This is fundamentally wrong.  In fact, I'd reverse your statement.  That trying to claim cheating is just another form of fudging is merely an attempt to make cheaters appear less unwholesome.

The difference between the two is dramatic, measurable, and defineable.

You are in college.  You are taking a test.  You open the text book to look up an answer.  Either:

a) this behavior is acceptable because its an open book test, meaning the professor, other students are aware of the behavior and have agreed its appropriate.  or

b) its cheating if you are doing it secretly and the professor and other students understand that it is NOT an open book test.


The difference is plain.  One is socially acceptable behavior.  The other will get you a failing grade and potentially expelled.  There is no blurry line.  There is no grey area.  There is right and there is wrong...and there are people who want to do wrong and pretend that it isn't...but it is.  Cheating is negative period, any arguement to the contrary is just spin-control.

Now...is this me on a high horse professing my candidacy for sainthood.  No.  I've cheated in RPGs before.  I've lied about the number rolled.  I've used transparent crystal dice that are impossible to read across the table to make the task easier.  I've pulled the "cocked-die" gimmick.  But I'm not going to sit here and try and say that wasn't cheating.  It was.  It was wrong.  I did it...but it was still cheating.

I'd just like to tell about my experiences with cheating here.

In any RPing sessions I've been in with Eric, we've almost always required that the players roll the dice in the center of the table (which is very well lit), to eliminate all possibilities of cheating. We started enforcing this when one of the players would roll and quickly pick up the dice so the GM wouldn't be able to see what he rolled. He would then report a number other than what was rollled on the dice as to make him succeed at certain actions. This is what I call cheating.

Fudging, in my opinion, is nothing like cheating. In our RPing sessions, the GM doesn't use a GM screen. He doesn't feel the point to hide the rolls from the players, and I agree. There's no point in not showing the players what the enemy rolls when attempting an action (this doesn't work as well on D6 as on D20, because all you see is what the die rolled and the modifiers are kept hidden, while in D6, the number of dice increases and you can estimate the enemy's true power moreso acurately). Anyways- We've had times where our enemies had rolled high enough that our lives would have been forfeit if the GM haden't fudged the roll. In our group, however, the GM openly admits when he's fudging the dice, instead of keeping it secret.

I can see how someone would think that neither method is necessarily better than the other, but in my opinion, the secrecy is what separates fudging from cheating.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Charly,

That is really interesting. Most groups which permit fudging usually still keep the rolls secret, in that many players don't mind if the GM fudges as long as they don't know exactly when. That's what most of the texts which encourage fudging assume as well; they always say "But never let the players know" in no uncertain terms.

Best,
Ron

[C. Edwards]

Okay, I'm going to bow out of this discussion. The word cheating has taken on too many varying connotations for me to effectively navigate between them.

-Chris

[Alan]

I just started a http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=69480#69480"> new thread in Actual Play asking for people's real experience of changing dice results themselves.  I think it'll be interesting to collect some anecdotal evidence and see if there's any system or GNS correlation.