It's almost as if the GM was 'cheating', and that this 'cheating' could be a good, bad, or neutral thing, depending on the context?

I didn't say you are doing the run for thousands of hours. You are however hopefully being the same character for thousands of hours.

Game: a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

Hobby: an activity or interest pursued for pleasure or relaxation and not as a main occupation

That is the difference.
Is it a game as in an amusement or pastime or it an hobby about pleasure and/or relaxation.

Yes I do take this serious. I am serious about my enjoyment. It's simple for me. and Miley Cyrus said sang it best
"There's always gonna be another mountain
I'm always gonna wanna make it move
Always gonna be a uphill battle
Sometimes I'm gonna have to lose

Ain't about how fast I get there
Ain't about what's waiting on the other side
It's the climb

The struggles I'm facing
The chances I'm taking
Sometimes might knock me down
But no, I'm not breaking

I may not know it
But these are the moments that
I'm gonna remember most, yeah
Just gotta keep going

And I, I got to be strong
Just keep pushing on

'Cause there's always gonna be another mountain
I'm always gonna wanna make it move
Always gonna be a uphill battle
Sometimes I'm gonna have to lose

Ain't about how fast I get there
Ain't about what's waiting on the other side
It's the climb"

Did you just--

Miley Cyrus?

We just got Rickrolled by the Disney Channel.

What the hell is the difference between passing time in amusement and pleasurable relaxing?

Also, after quoting a goddamn Miley Cyrus song it's pretty apparent you're just trolling us.

Nowai, she's even more authoritative than Wikipedia!

No a session is a session. You could think of a run as a 'game', but I do not. A run could lead to another run which could lead to another run, you know that whole campaign concept.

What is ridiculous is your idea that cheating, per se, is not bad.


I didn't turn my nose up at it It is an online RPG hence that term MMORPG It's two sides of the same genre.

Fart jokes amusement
Eating your favorite food pleasure.


Why?
Oh I see you didn't bother to read the words you just saw Miley Cyrus and stopped.

So. We've established that the reason your RPGs are sooo much better than all other games is because you can connect the sessions? I notice that you didn't mention my question about an open-ended series of Magic The Gathering matches played with the same (possibly evolving) deck. What, exactly, does this have to do with cheating?

Is the statistical outcome the game?
Is it the act of playing the game?

Is making a 'legally broken character" breaking the integrity of the game?

Maybe. Sometimes.

If you're so bored that you're baiting the Disneytroll, go run a PbP.

I would say that I am surprised that you cannot see a difference between an RPG and a CCG but I would be dishonest.
An open ended series of M:tG matches is about winning.
Here let me say that again. It is about winning, you know that whole concept of winning and competitiveness and winning.

What does this have to do with cheating and the original point rules lawyer. Simple
Why cheat when there is no winner or loser? What does cheating gift you in a roleplaying session? Why does cheating not mean 'much' unless there is money or a prize?

Cheating: to violate rules or regulations; to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
See I find it odd that you are smarmy with my concept of hobby and game, yet you take very liberal interpretation of what cheating is. Cheating doesn't have an addendum about it isn't cheating unless there's money to be had

You need to make up your mind. You never said your 1000-hour hobbies couldn't be about winning.

You've also just contradicted yourself: either cheating doesn't matter when there's no winner, or it does. Which one?

In fact, I haven't expressed a definition of cheating, because I thought it was obvious. I certainly never said 'it's not cheating unless you're winning'. I've repeatedly explained that cheating doesn't *matter*, not that something 'isn't cheating'.

Post 127 should set you straight about the 'winning' part

I didn't contradict myself. I fail to see where I did.

you said:
post 117 "But not one that matters much to anyone. smile.gif You can't win anything, so you can't really cheat. Even fudging dice rolls doesn't really change much. "

Everything is PvP in EvE all the way down to the industrialists that build things to sell. They are competing against other players for buyers. EvE is a sandbox, you can do whatever you want. The learning curve is massively steep but the complexity is part of the fun, it makes Battletech look rules light. Having a single un-sharded server makes a massive difference as well.

MMORPG Learning Curve Graph

I seriously don't get playing an MMO for the PvE content, kinda the exact opposite of the entire point of an MMO imo. Then again I don't get people who like Raids either, "yeay lets go do the same thing we did last weekend again this weekend \0/".

Then again I am probably one of those griefers you have heard about

Cheating always matters. If it didn't matter people would just say "I rolled a 2 but count it as a 18".

Piersdrach: You're right, I wasn't as clear there as I should have been. I thought the preceding and following sentences ('it doesn't matter', 'it doesn't change much') set up my point, but I apologize for confusing anyone.

Now, you said this: "Why cheat when there is no winner or loser? What does cheating gift you in a roleplaying session? Why does cheating not mean 'much' unless there is money or a prize?" Either you're saying that there's no reason to cheat in a roleplaying *game* session, or you're saying that cheating 'does mean much even if there's no prize'. Which? I guess it's possible you meant that people are cheating for no reason, but let us not speculate on people's motivations.

Again, not that your answer here makes any difference, which is the whole point: cheating per se has can have some *or* no effect, and any negative effect is not the result of being cheating, but of game-breaking.

Congzilla, that depends entirely on the roll. If rolling an 18 there would break the game, then it matters. Otherwise, it wouldn't. Maybe they were rolling on a table of random hair colors, or any number of other possibilities. If an 18 *would* break the game, then a legal character who *had* an 18 (let's say, through powergaming) would be equally disruptive. It's not the action of cheating that changes anything, except your personal emotions.

Wounded Ronin gave a decent answer for it, though his answer is directed towards just a GM it applies to everyone "What is the point of playing a game if the GM is just going to disregard the rules? All the statistical outcomes the game design is predicated on gets screwed if the GM edits outcomes. As soon as you do that a single time the integrity of the rules has been broken and we might as well be writing a story instead of playing a game. So a GM should be corrected if he is screwing with the stats."

My questions were all questions to ponder or respond to.
Why cheat when there is no winner or loser?What is cheating going to accomplish in a winner-less 'game'
What does cheating gift you in a roleplaying session? What prize do you 'win' in a roleplaying session
Why does cheating not mean 'much' unless there is money or a prize? Why does cheating not matter in this type of 'game'?

The act of cheating in a winner-less game is still cheating, you are taking your own 'amusement' and putting it higher than everyone elses. What would be the sense of spending the time to create a character if you are going to ignore what you created and just use whatever you want.

Interesting. As a benevolent overlord (GM), I sometimes cheat with the express prior permission of the players. Depends on your table, but my guys tend to really get into things when they're on the bleeding edge of survival. So I throw hard shit at them. When I miscalculate, (oh... that'll be a TPK within 2 passes if this keeps going, and I just wanted it to be kinda hard), I sometimes fudge a few rolls to edit the scenario back to where I intended it. Is this cheating? Yup, I deliberately break the rules. [flamebait]Does this make me a bad GM?[/flamebait] I don't think so. It keeps the story moving, keeps me and my players entertained, and we get on with our fun. Do note, I told my group that I might be doing this--and they were cool with it.

I think Yeremayahu makes a good point. As long as the cheating is the kind that isn't fucking up the game, cool. Go nuts. Now, in my opinion, the only time this is going to be a good thing is when it's the GM doing the cheating, and only if it's for the benefit of the game, rather than just fucking with the players. But that's an opinion.

I know about the complexity and that's part of the appeal to me. Regarding the draw of PvE play, it's the challenge in working together as a team to overcome some difficult task. Beating difficult raid content for the first time is quite the rush. Afterwards once everything is on "farm status" there's less appeal and that's usually when a group experiences attendance issues, however two aspects continue to draw you in: 1, attaining better loot so you can overcome future challenges, this is both for yourself and the others you raid with, greed rewards the items you get yourself but you also genuinely feel happy for someone else to get a big upgrade and because of the randomly dropping loot this is like a Slot Machine addiction for some. 2, loyalty to the group, a spirit of camraderie, "the social contract", you've killed all the bosses several times already, you have every item you want from that dungeon but if you don't go the group suffers or may outright fail due to your absence and so you keep showing up for the sake of others. Also, it's fun to hang out and kill things together.

So there you have it, at first the thrill of the hunt and then later gambling addiction style reinforcement plus social bonds.

As for PvP? Trust me EvE isn't the first game with open PvP and I haven't "heard of" griefers like you, I've done my share in hell. I can play a FPS or RTS and any kind of PvP where two opponents willingly engage each other. But gameplay where one player is happily mining asteroids in his sitting duck industrial ship or running missions in their PvE fitted Raven and you just ganking them? It doesn't appeal to me, ironically the only fun I've had in such PvP games is turning the tables on a would-be ganker. I don't see any merit in griefplay, it just isn't fun for me to do that to someone else and obviously isn't fun for anyone to be on the recieving end. Cruelty is for children.

So besides the griefplay PvP in EvE has largescale corp warfare, fleet vs. fleet, and that does sound very cool to me. Too bad I've heard the server can't actually support those battles and they just go very laggy and/or crash the node. =(

Oh and regarding the whole "cheating" thing, just to make my position clear, I'd never cheat since I like the idea of "rolling with the punches" on bad dice rolls and the randomness that's involved but I don't care, and won't get bent out of shape, if another player (or the GM) fudges his rolls from time to time. It's usually done to save a character's life and I completely understand the investment at stake there. If he does it a lot then yea, that gets dumb, there should be some risk and Shadowrun especially offer and "out" by burning edge.

cheating in games like shadowrun matter because the rules in the game, including the ones for the GM, are what makes the difference in a bunch of people 1)playing a game, and 2)listening to someone tell a story and hoping to add in a minor detail here and there. If people want to listen to a story that's ok, but we're on a forum talking about a game with rules. It even says Shadowrun RPG, Role Playing GAME at the top of the catalyst website not Shadowrun WYOSSS ,Write Your own Silly Story System. Also, if you want to just tell a story why bother with dice and rules at all in the first place?

Perhaps I should clarify my point.

While designing a shadowrun, I put in a physical security system designed to slow the players down so that security could respond and catch them in the act.

When the players actually ran on the facility, the system proved to be MUCH more deadly than I originally thought... to the point where characters would die messily, bad feelings would be generated between the players and GM (You sir, are being a dick GM!), and play would stop if I didn't change SOMETHING.

All because of something that didn't play in practice like it had in my head or in the limited trials I ran while troubleshooting the scenario.

So, I have three options.

1. Ignore the problem, let the players roll with the punches, and loudly proclaim my innocence in the ensuing argument with cries of "but that's how the dice fell!"

2. Change what security is actually at the place, ruining the descriptions I already worked out, and basically trashing all my head-work earlier in setting up the run.

3. Fudge a few rolls, so that the traps in the security system work the way they did in my head, and delay rather than kill people.

I have tried all three of these methods before. Honestly, method three works the best at my table. Method 1 generally ends the session, (and once, the campaign). Method 2 generally causes a three to ten minute delay in the game as I rework things and look stuff up (or attempt to pull something entirely new out of my nether regions). Method three keeps the game going, and keeps the difficulty "as advertized" by their fixer/footwork. So that's what I tend to use when I've already screwed up.

Not saying it's a perfect solution, but it's an instance of "cheating" that I view as generally beneficial to the game.

Because you forgot the first two words of that ROLE PLAYING Game. If you are worried only about the game part, there are plenty of FPSes out there that handle that aspect much better than a PnP can.
Without the context of the story a role playing game is what, a group of people rolling dice to see who shot the other first?

I just want to throw this quote from SR4A into this discussion about GM's 'cheating'.

GMs do not cheat.

They do, however, occasionally adjust things to maximize the player enjoyment of the game.






-karma

I must disagree. I find such games clunky and annoying. PnP rpgs with well written backgrounds and rules work far better on a multitude of areas.

And just in case anyone is curious I have complained and resisted a dm cheating on my behalf to keep my char alive before. I take rules to be just that rules not just a guideline for how to write down numbers and letters on a page that become meaningless because they are ignored when everything doesn't work perfectly in someones mind.

I'd have gone with a mixture of 1 and 2. In the past when I screw up and make things stupid difficult and players drop like flies, those are the sessions that the players talk about the most and are retold like Epics.
http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0038.html

Nice.

Heheheh... Awesome!

I don't know about that... I played Magic the Gathering for a very long time (and invested way to much money into the game, sadly)... and you know something, it was never about the winning for me... it was about the comraderie between friends and the construction of interesting decks to play with (Something I continuously did... must have constructed thousands of decks over the years)... not every game need be about winning...

I don't like GM fudging, myself. I would rather know that the big bad died because I planned for the hit, or rolled really well, rather than because it was time for his dramatic death scene.

To be honest, I wouldn't have that much of a problem with a GM fudging to save the game, because he messed something up - sometimes you can mess things up when you set up an encounter, and Shadowrun is an extremely lethal game. What I dislike is when GMs fudge to save their story. At that point, it really does become the GM reading you a novel. I like the rules not only for the ability to quantify what my character does, like Wounded Ronin mentioned, but also for the genuinely random element that the dice introduce.

Even that, though, comes down to personal preference. I may not prefer that style of play, but some players actually do like storytelling GMs. I think that's fine, as long as the GM is upfront with it and the players are all cool with it.

Yeah... GM fudging does tend to irritate me a lot.

I tend to design my characters for a certain adherence to the rules, both by me and my group. When I have certain bonuses that enable me to perform a given task, it really irks me when the GM decides that he does not like that for his scenario, and then completely ignores the modifiers because he thinks that this makes it more exciting for me... If I wanted to have modifiers completely ignored, I would not utilize them in the first place...

Pisses me off actually...

Sorry... Rant Over...

I agree. But the point is sometimes the GM cannot see the difference between his story and the game that we share.

This... for me, exactly this.

I've had the unfortunate experience to play in a campaign a long time ago where the GM not only fudged rolls, but completely cheated and went against the rules in almost every way possible just so that his 'story' worked out exactly like he planned. The other players and their characters were largely irrelevant to his epic wank-fest story; so much so that he had his own personal GMPCs that always showed up to save our asses.

Personally, I would rather die from a bad die roll than feel like nothing I did ever mattered and that there weren't any rules in the game.
I know this is personal preference... but I approach PnP RPGs like any other non-freeform game that relies on rules. If someone cheated at a card game, everyone else would get pissed off. I react the same way when it comes to RPGs... otherwise, what's the point of any rules at all? Let's all just play Shadowrun Improv!

Just lik Glyph stated, I agree it comes down to personal preference.... but for me, I'll never continue playing a game when I realize that the GM doesn't care about the rules. If HE screwed up on something on creating an encounter and has to fix his mistakes, then so be it. Heck, it's one of the reasons why I actually PREFER published adventure material.... at least it should have been playtested more thoroughly.
But when I find out a GM is some control freak and cheats the rules so he can 'win' against the players or advance his own personal EPIC story (which nobody else gives two shits about), then I am OUT OUT OUT.


Sorry for the rant... I've been lurking this topic for a while now, and it just kind of burst out. >.<

In my opinion the problem was that as the GM you tried to get a very precise and fine line outcome from the opposition, ie specifically slowing the players down just so. So the real issue was the finesse with which the scenario was supposed to run.

IMO the way to go is to design opposition without specifically considering the PCs or a specific outcome. Instead, IMO the right thing to do is design an opposition that seems realistic or reasonable given the facility or what have you. It might be too much for the PCs but it's up to them to recon and find that out and create an appropriate plan. It's all about planning and tactics and therein lies the game.

A team of runners is basically a freelance special forces team. In real life you wouldn't expect a special forces team to wander willy nilly through all their missions and have everything be some finely balanced Goldilocks scenario. You would expect them to attempt their mission objectives but also gauge the situation, consider emergency extractions if necessary, possibly abort or modify certain aspects of the mission depending on circumstances, etc.

Did you ever play the original Operation Flashpoint Cold War Crisis? Some of the sweetest feelings of accomplishment I ever got from video games was merely surviving some of the crazy scenarios, but managing to get a big body count as well on the statistics screen afterwards. But that all comes down to tactics and judgement, not assured success or big plot wagon. It is something special that only happens when meticulous tactics and unrelenting focus combine with overwhelming opposition/targets.

The act of playing the game encompasses the gaming group generating the statistical outcomes.

A legally broken character isn't technically breaking the integrity of the game but perhaps the rules would benefit from some errata or a new edition.

I have rarely encountered a GM that actually plans for the mission to be aborted or gives exp/karma because a mission was aborted. I have rarely played in any group that thinks walking away from a mission is a good thing - "the GM gave us this scenario, we should be able to overcome it".

No one gives two shits about the story? Why the hell are you there for in the first place? To test out your rules knowledge? To see if your build works like it was supposed to? I'm flabbergasted at the concept that story means zilch and rules means all.

Hell I've run whole campaigns were every die roll I rolled was purely for show and just made up the results. Any decent GM can do that and give the group a great session. It is not hard by any means.

I do like the hyperbole of it's either all rules all the time or Improv theatre. Here I thought that was a phenomenon of the D&D forums. I guess it's not.

Ditto, toturi. It *could* be good story, but it's important to remember that the game is what the group wants.

Piersdrach, maybe it's to have fun playing a game?

So the game is strategic planning followed up by clever use of statistical probabilities to execute that strategy in tactical ways?
Here I thought we were playing a roleplaying game not Squad Leader.


Here I thought the act of playing the game encompasses the group interacting with the story using dice at major points to enhance that story being told.

Squad Leader is why Shadowrun is so much fun.

Here you were wrong.

Did you ever play the old Rainbow Six games? You had brutal, unforgiving, and realistic combat and instant PC death, but you also had scenario context and detailed backstory on each character.

Therein lies the tragedy, catharsis, and realism. Every person has tremendous potential in their life and it is possible to be skilled, heroic, and seasoned, BUT the laws of physics don't re roll for anyone and even a veritable hero can be randomly or stupidly killed in a chaotic firefight.

A combat hero is a hero because in the long run chance favors no man and because combat is dangerous, crippling and deadly. If it were safe and there were re rolls for famous people it would be totally different.

An aggrandizing fantasy with statistical window dressing is not moving or cathartic. Your character can't truly be a combat hero unless there is an impartial element of risk or maiming.

In a crazy firefight even the best of the best are at great risk. I recommend "We Were Soldiers Once And Young" as an amazing Vietnam history that really highlights this.

A true great and tragic story may arise from the characters if you let the dice fall where they may, and seasoned veterans will probably minimize combat because they know their luck will run out one day.

The best and most amazing combat stories are the ones that aren't planned.

Eh, most peoples' made up stories suck, IMO. Things tend to wrap up too neatly and be too pat. Truth is stranger than fiction and part of that is the mockery of randomness and chance re our best laid plans and most cherished ideologies.

LOL, one time the team outright rejected my planned mission and so the session was about them all going to the bar. I had to make it up as we went along. They saw a pimp beating a prostitute and acted in character. Yes, the pimp had "realistic" stats.

I remember one guy telling me afterwards he had a lot of fun.

I could almost believe that if the game didn't favor the players.
If you want a game about combat that is lethal and fun at the same time try Usagi Yojimbo

Yeah, RPGs are about PCs. They're unrealistic and powered by narrative-magic. Shows like Burn Notice and Leverage, movies like Heat and Italian Job, or even Saving Private Ryan, aren't great because they're real. That doesn't mean it's not awesome to be all tacticular, or that bad GMing isn't bad GMing. Just as any cheating ( hehe), GM cheating can be good, indifferent, or bad. If the group knows that it doesn't want kid gloves, take them off; if they're fine with it, etc.

I agree. As I mentioned in another thread, I generally only tailor the opposition to the players when their fixer has set up a run tailored to their talents. In this instance... the site security was designed without knowing the party's capabilities. I just wanted something that would reasonably delay anyone breaking in until arrival of a response team.

I'll just respond to this bit....

Sorry if it sounded like I never care about story. I most certainly do. That specific part of my rant was in the context of this ONE campaign that I played in. I should also specify that we didn't hate the story AT FIRST. It was only after a few games that we, the players, started losing interest in the story because nothing we did ever mattered. We could live, we could die, we could try to drink ale at the local tavern.... none of it mattered, because the story always happened exactly how the DM thought it should and because our rolls never mattered. If he wanted us to hit (rarely) we hit. If he wanted us to miss (which was often), we missed. etc, etc...

It also didn't help that the DM of that particular game involved a whole lot of politics and intrigue (a style that didn't exactly fit most of this group). Also, he relied heavily.... VERY heavily on a crazy encyclopedic knowledge of setting lore. I knew a little about this particularly setting, but the other players didn't and the stuff went way over their heads.

All this added up to.... them not giving two shits about the story.

Does that make better sense?


Personally, I love story in a PnP RPG.... when I feel that I have an impact on it as a player. Otherwise I'm just a backseat driver to someone else's fantasy. No thanks... that's not how I enjoy tabletop roleplaying.
Not that I don't occasionally enjoy some spectator fantasy... but that's why I read books, watch movies, or play Final Fantasy XIII!

I am there for a game. If you are there for a story, you could do better by watching a film or reading a book.

I am flabbergasted at the concept that the dice results means zilch and story rules all, and that a decent GM will run whole campaigns ignoring his players inputs and tell his predetermined stories. If I want to participate in someone else's self-masturbatory fantasies, I'd go watch fucking Twilight instead.

QFT!

Mind if I nab that for my sig as well? That's exactly what I've been trying to say all along, and you summed it up way better than I could!