The line is not drawn at "hobbies" versus "game"...

it is not drawn at "competitive" versus "non-competitive" (is cooperating game one or the other?).

The line is drawn at "Player" versus "Gamemaster".

The Gamemaster is in charge of the rules, the story and the world. He is absolutely free master about his decisions, the way he think things should happen or work and the rules he want to apply or not. The GM have a screen, that is not entirely because he need reminder on rules or hide scenario and game maps from the players, it is also because he is entitled BY THE RULES to adjust the dice he roll the way it favor more the story, keep things interesting and or can SAVE THE SORRY ASS of an unlucky hero.

The player are supposed to play entirely by the rules submitted by the GM, they are not allowed to adjust them at their whim and they are doomed to what they roll when they draw dice.

A Cheating player is someone that cannot accept that fate sometimes dont shine on him or that failure is an option. By unilateraly adjusting his rolls, game stats or equipement he change event so he could achieve success. Doing so he take on the place of the GM showing he have no respect for him or his capability of handling bad events.

I have some of my players that are cheaters, I despise it greatly. That ruins game experience for me because they cheat to win challenges they shouldn't have and rely more on cheating and brute force than on roleplaying or their brain for success (they also tend to whine a lot). That ruins game experience for the other players because they follow the rules and are punished for doing so because sometimes they dont succeed while the cheater do and because their good idea and build is wronged by the simple cheater way (why spend energy on a build or idea when you just have to fudge the roll or add skills or gear at the will).

Fighting against cheating is time consuming for the GM and put a suspicion on all and every action, ruining the game mood. And Gamemastering is already a very heavy work that doesnt deserve such ungrateful behaviour (especially good/implicated gamemastering).

I nearly never killed a player character willingly, often twisted dice rules or dying rules to keep them alive when they deserve to live. Only killing them for very very stupid action or sometimes in very dangerous situation to show them that they were playing without ropes, but even then it was never an Act of God, always a result of their action and always letting them a chance. I saved them many times from their own bad decision by common sens rolls. I do my best so they live an interesting story, develop multifaceted character and have fun.

Against the cheater my position is clearer, I roll what I roll. He choose to play my role and want to gamemaster his character, that's fine but I wont help him at all. If he do something stupid he pay the consequence, no take back, no saves, no common sens roll. If the dices show he should die or be aggravated at scenario start by a lucky shoot from a mood-setting encounter then he WILL die, I wont help him. I spent countless hours reading rules and books, crafting scenario and NPCs, preparing elements for the games. I cant let one cheater that usually doesnt even care to read anything about the rules or the world (why care?) ruins all that and the other players fun, I could just as well throw the towel.

Cheaters are a plague and the trouble is also they are always self-righteous, prone to throw the accusation on the GMs and retorting to a casual but hypocrit position about gaming.

Ask yourself something : if it really is just a non-competitive game, why did you choose to cheat at it ? you have nothing to lose by accepting bad results and nothing to gain by cheating. Why are you trying to cheat your win to a no-win game ? Did you ever cheat so you fail a roll ?

An important point about cheating in games like this is that it ruins versimilitude and makes the players lazy while enforcing metagaming. This has been a huge issue for me as I'm in a group that rotates DMs. I tried to make plot points with a huge number of hints that the players were being manipulated... the fact that their route into the facility was a little too clear and stepping outside the area they were supposed to go resulted in far stronger defenses, for example. I tried to drop clues that the enemy was far better equipped than they should have been by having the enemy gear be unreasonably good for the situation. I had defenses that were clearly designed specifically to counter the team's abilities. But they didn't get any of these clues, because they assumed from a meta perspective that I was doing what one of our other DMs likes to do, namely railroading them around and screwing them when it looked like the run would be too easy. This made it REALLY hard to actually show the plot (in this case, it was the Arcology and Deus was using them).

JaronK

On the story vs. rules debate, I prefer the rules, not because I don't like the story, but because I feel like the story should be something that happens, not something predetermined that is told to me.

I would rather have the GM use plots, than tell a story. Plots mean that things will happen with or without the PCs jumping in, but if they do get involved, then they begin to affect the scenario. Instead of one pre-set narrative path, there are actions and consequences.

I prefer this style as a GM, as well as a player. It is fun when players do something unexpected, and the scenario takes off in ways that I never imagined it would.

Story doesnt necessiraly mean Railtrack.

There is no need for a debate between Story and Rules. Rules are how the Story happen to be. But it is the charge of the GM to put on the best Story for everyone, and sometimes it require to nudge a bit the rules or a roll.

Hell, it's been in the Rules since the very first RPG : "The DM is to bend the rules and dice roll to help the story roll on IN CASE OF NEED". Even the Rules agree they come second.

I actually find that if I plan things right, the rules can help make the story better. Creating my guards based on what the company could actually afford, for example, makes me really think about what gear I'm giving them, and soon enough you start to see really efficient kits that tell you a lot about the company (a company that can easily surgically remove items from their fallen troops may have a policy of never leaving a man behind, but have better cyberware, while a company that uses fanatic loyalty to get kamakaze troops is going to have exterior gear).

JaronK

Ganking industrialists isn't as simple as it sounds since you have to trick them into becoming agressed to you. But I actually am ceo of a merc corp so for us it is more corp vs corp (right now we are working a week long protection contract). They have done a lot to fix the node crash issues and even before they did you needed hundreds of people on the same grid of the same node to crash it.

Oh, lord. IKerensky, if they can't win anything by cheating, why do you care? I can see from your comments that you're committing exactly the error I mentioned: taking it *personally* and *emotionally*. How dare they cheat you! After all those countless hours you invested for them! So, you want to punish them; not because it ruined the game, but because those ingrates dissed you. You, the 'absolute free master'. If you think that RPGs are GM vs. PC, you're beyond help already.

JaronK, that doesn't sound like cheating was your problem. It sounds like a combination of bad (that is, too subtle, and with incorrect assumptions) GMing and stupid (that is, unaware of the GM's assumptions) players created a miscommunication.

???

I just dont understand. RPG si not PC against GM, that what Descent is.

If you think you are entitled to cheat because they are not winning goal in the game (even if they are goals in the game) you are the one deluded beyond hope.

If you win nothing by cheating : why are you cheating ? because you DO WIN something by cheating : success at test you should have failed, rewards, survival...

Dont took the high path on me, the cheaters are the ones that are on the wrong side. And if you actively support cheating then I think you are not the kind of people I'd like to frequent. I'd suppose you cheat a lot on the real life too after all ? cheat IRS, short change vendor, use bus/coworker driving line ? why not ? In real life there is no winner nor loser either.

The Cheater is the one that think the game is him against the Gamemaster, the other play along with the gamemaster.

In real life, there are tons of winners and losers. I'll just ignore the rest of that paragraph.

You said that the game is GM vs. PC; I misunderstood, if you meant that is 'the cheater's view'. I didn't misunderstand your idea that the GM is 'master' and the players are just there to obey. With a GM like that, it's no wonder people would cheat.

You also said that you gain nothing by cheating, but now you've contradicted that. *shrug*

I didn't say anyone's entitled to cheat. I said that cheating itself has no bearing on anything, and that personal emotional responses to the fact of cheating are misguided.

The big problem with the GM fudging dice rolls to save a character is that forevermore whenever things don't go how the character would like the question on some players' minds will be why the GM didn't fudge.

Once you have fudged, your future inaction vis a vis not fudging itself becomes an extension of GM favor or disfavor.

The only way to run a fair game is to never fudge ever. That is the only way not to have players thinking you disfavor them if you don't fudge, or as some have suggested fail to fudge if you think the character has made poor choices but otherwise fudge.

I guess I just feel that some of the best combat stories I have ever gotten from games have been from inherently unforgiving games like Jagged Alliance 2. You have characters but there is no fudging or favortism. And the result when you play it with no takebacks is absolute balls to the wall combat and crazy hero stories when the team medic runs out through fire to stabilize a man down. There is no fudging and sometimes it works and sometimes you lose two characters but that is what makes for the very best organically generated stories.

No: the only way is to never let the players know you fudge. The screen is not only here to protect your slice of pizza.

And you would be wrong. There is a reason that someone cheats. The act of cheating has a 'bearing on something'. It is not some random act of nature that makes Yerameyahu cheat.

If you are there for a game, you could do better by playing a video game or a miniature game or a CCG or a boardgame.

Why lump people who like story in a role playing game into just one stack?

It's unfortunate that Ravennus got all poopooed in a game back in the day it happens. Why use that experience as a club?

If your there for only the dice, does it matter if the GM is doing his 'self-masturbatory fantasy'? Are you not there only for your own self-masturbatory fantasies on how kewl your system mastery is?

I just find it odd that it's badwrongfun for the GM's self-masturbatory fantasies on story, but it's goodcleanawesomesauce on your self-masturbatory fantasies on system mastery

OK. I must say that you are rather disingenuous. You seem to be arguing that one should never have any emotion invested in a RPG. Why would someone that apathetic play at all? Can you truly say that you have no emotion whatsoever no matter what happens? If that is true, what is the point of playing? It certainly can not be for fun. The act of having fun is an emotional response.

If a GM openly said that no matter what happens he is going to completely screw your character just because he feels like being mean, would you not care at all or have an emotions? The answer is that you obviously would. Why else are you playing the game and visiting these forums if you do not have some emotional investment? So since the answer is yes, all we are arguing is what we consider cheating. And yes Cheating does exist, contrary to the assertion of several people. Cheating is simply a deviation from the generally accepted rules and principles of the game and preferences of the people at the table. For someone to fudge a die roll without the consent of the people at the table, then they are cheating.

This is why I always roll in the open and expect others to do the same. If fudging rolls is ok, then why hide it? People only hide their die so they can fudge without others knowing.

That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying 'stop taking a player cheating so personally.'

Nobody has said cheating doesn't exist. It does. By the same vein, it doesn't matter. So what if your player has a Pixie Technomancer that still has his 1 Magic attribute? So what if he's got a Fomori that's half Russian, half diesel locomotive? So what if he called a four a success so he didn't critically glitch during a combat? Are these three things going to completely annihilate you game?

Are they going to cause you to throw up your hands and forsake playing this system ever again?

Are they going to invalidate the thousands of hours per year you play it?

This is a game we play with roles we take - storyteller, gilette, hacker, magician, and so on. We don't play against anyone - we play with the rest of the folks around the table, or the Internets, via Ouija Board, what-have-you. Some folks have a drive to make the best - best character, best campaign, best set of rolls in a tricky situation. Some folks like the sound of a cascade of dice. Others like the sound those people make when half of them turn up ones.

Why doesn't it matter?

Everyone here seems to think the rules mean so much and story is shit, why have the rules if cheating doesn't matter? You should just be playing cops and robbers shouting bang your dead at each other.

It doesn't because there's always workarounds. Either you as a GM can take the player aside and explain how it's not cool, or if it persists you utilize an ingame countermeasure designed to teach a lesson.

Hell, you can just not allow the character if the character breaks the game.

As for the cops and robbers comment, well...we are playing Shadowrun, which is cops and robbers. I'm not incredibly sure what point you were trying to make.

Two things here:

1. Story is of the utmost importance to me. But a great story does not require cheating. Cheating can only take away from the story.

2. Rule breaking and die fudging is not inherently cheating. It is only cheating if done deceptively and without consent.

Piersdrach, were you the one who was mocking hyperbole earlier? I hope not, because the irony could be lethal. There's nothing wrong with playing Shadowrun 'just for the story' *or* 'just for the game'. Some people like one, the other, or both, and they're all right. Your elitism is misguided.

People are saying that it's important to agree on the ideal of a shared, pre-established ruleset, because that's what makes the world consistent and balanced. That *doesn't* mean 'the rules are everything' and it doesn't mean fudging, tweaking, or cheating destroy the game, whether the GM or a player does it.

People are also saying that it's not the GM's game. It's not fun to be railroaded (without consent, and even then, not always). They're saying that they want the challenges to feel real, so the triumph is, too. Again, this isn't black and white: losing a character (we all know the investment) at a narratively-inappropriate time is not fun. It's not even good story.

There's simply no need for all this binary, black and white argument.

because a well run RPG is much more fun. The rules are much more dynamic and the areas of play are basically limitless in an RPG.

Why are you trying to make it seem like only part of RPG matters?

The problem I have, and I think others seem to share as wel, is that when a DM has a story and rolls dice just for show then its the DMs story. Many of us don't give a rats rear about sitting around to hear his story. When the DM simply has a plot or general idea of what he's going to have NPCs do and what events will occur then what happens is a story. When the DM plays by the rules, including houserules, then there is a much higher chance of the story being the group's story because everyone gets to change the course of it in whatever way they can and choose to.

I'm not totally comfortable when people go on and on about the idea of "story" in role playing games as an abstraction of paramount importance without which a game will be diminished. I've already explained why the abstraction of "story" predicated on the cosmic importance of certain characters goes against the creation of real balls-to-the-wall incredible war stories.

But I want to respond to the people who ask why you'd want to play a RPG, if not for story; the people who say that you should play a video game if all you want is tactics.

In an RPG you can represent tactical situations that are much more complex than what are represented in typical video games, especially given the rash of dumbed down console games out there. There are precious few video games where you can call for air support or emergency extraction. Today's games tend to rely really heavily on scripting, and often times your air support or whatever will behave in exactly scripted ways, instead of appearing wherever you call it and acting on its own independent AI.

The only game I know where you could happen to be pursued by a whole platoon on enemies but have a totally not-scenario-specific ability to call in helicopters and/or boats for either support or extraction and extract from anywhere on the map you wanted was EA's SEAL Team. You could even attempt multiple false insertions just like a real SEAL team!

http://www.mobygames.com/game/seal-team

It is one of my favorite games of all time and today, with the possible exception of ARMA, you don't have any games that let you operate with that sort of multi-layered tactical flexibility.

But in Shadowrun, you can have planes, tanks, cars, AND infantry. There's rules for it all, especially in third edition. There could be a rigger with a chopper who can extract the team in the middle of your fully developed rules-intensive tactical gun battle. The chopper could also get shot down. There's rules for it all.

You're never going to get those kinds of wide open possibilities in a video game nowadays because of the limitations of AI and the grindstone-around-the-neck graphical requirements that these games have.

Incidentally that's why I think the one thing SR needs the most is a better suppression fire rule. Because suppression fire is such an important part of manuevering and combat especially with small teams versus platoons of enemies.

For serious, Wounded Ronin. Shadowrun is *all about* badass tacticular fun.

Why lump people who like to game in a roleplaying game into just one stack? Incidentally there is no "story" in roleplaying game but it is still a game.

If I am here for a game, I can go play a video game, a CCG or a miniature game. But a roleplaying game is also a game and I enjoy gaming. Not just only video gaming or CCGing or miniature gaming.

I am not there for how cool my system mastery is. I get enough of it here on Dumpshock. But when I play a roleplaying game, I recognise it is not just about me and it should not be just about the GM and his story. I ask that the needs of his story not be placed above the combined interest of our game. Evidently you disagree.

I'm not lumping people who think of it as only a game into one stack. I realize that it says game.
Game has a number of meanings
an amusement or pastime
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.
a single occasion of such an activity, or a definite portion of one
anything resembling a game, as in requiring skill, endurance, or adherence to rules
Personally when I see roleplaying game I associate that with the last definition "anything resembling a game, as in requiring skill, endurance, or adherence to rules", but I think people fluctuate with the meaning a lot especially in this thread.
I get frustrated by the flippant attitudes of players who justify whatever they are doing by saying "it's just a game" like you are doing with the "GM and his story" shield. I've seen this on numerous forums lately, and I don't get it. Who cares if one time at band camp someone poopooed. It happens, but to allow that one poopoo to be used as justification for all later actions is a shitty way to play.
I had a close friend that I booted from our group for this type of behavior. He was all up in arms about some of his other groups and how they played, when we started a new group he was a complete ass about the whole aspect of gaming. The group was shattering under his attitude and his excuse was he didn't want what happened before to happen again so he was preempting those situations. So I booted him and he hasn't talked to anyone in the local gaming community since. The players that left in frustration came back and we are currently having a fun time.

See I think a GM who feels the need to push his enjoyment onto everyone at the table is as much of an ass as the self absorbed player. It's a group social activity. Nothing kills the atmosphere of a game more then seeing a table of individuals and not a group.

Actually I'd say that you do get it already. As you said, you are frustrated with certain attitudes and viewpoints of others. You are using the same line of reasoning as those other people you are accusing of shitty play.

A player that is disruptive can be kicked out by the GM. Kicking out a bad GM means no game.

I think the trouble is that not everyone have the same perception of what is a RPG, and have a very distorted perception of the view of the others while I think reality is far more balanced than that.

There is many kind of RPG, from entirely system-directed (computer RPG) to entirely story-driven (rules-less/dice-less RPG) with the vast majority falling between. And many way to play each RPG while emphasis more on tactical simulation or cinematic viewing.

The only thing that all RPG agrees is on the definition of cheating.

A Gamemaster never cheat, that's in the rules. He can adjust dice rolls, make rules changes and do anything he is convinced will benefit the game experience as he wish. He is not entitled to advice the players when he choose to do so but he could for several reasons:
- To warn players of large game modification ("I choose to play without the Technomancers", "I feel that this implant or trait is too advantageous/disadvantageous/doesn't go well with the campaign I planned", "I am not at ease with Matrix rules so I will use a more abstract system, here is how it will feel")
- To warn them that they were very lucky and not to try again ("Ouch, that's pass but it was close, you shouldn't try it again before next millenium").
- Not to tell them that he saved their life so they doesnt feel invicible.

A Player that adjust his die roll, change things on his character sheet, willingly forgot to apply a rules or modifier that penalize him is Cheating. He is robbing the other players that aren't cheating and have to suffer from their failures. He is doing the GM job and robbing him of his decisions. This guy should just go play alone as he obviously dont care about the other people at the table and is only concerned with his character success.

Or, he could just keep playing, because odds are it's not breaking the game in any way at all. He's not 'robbing' anything, except maybe 'himself' of the 'real challenge'.

He is not playing alone. He is robbing the other people around the table because he is concentrated on his own success and hapiness. He is breaking game balance and that is game breaking enough for me.

I made an inquiry and a large majority of my players are not happy to play with someone that cheat, even if they are unconfortable with confronting him directly. For them the cheater is robbing them of their achievement and success by cheaping them. The only player that have no problem with it is the one that actually is cheating (and he doesnt understood the poll was driven on the club forum so to show him how the other player feel about it).

It is not a MMORPG or a computer RPG, it is a social game, cheater action impact everyone. Why do you fail to understand that ?

Ah, there it is: *if* he's breaking the game, *then* it's a problem. Otherwise, it's not. In no way does cheating inherently 'rob them of their success'.

In fact, cheating in an MMO is a huge problem, because there's very little innocuous cheating possible. In a tabletop, there is.

So, you took a poll of emotional responses to cheating. That's precisely what I've explained doesn't matter. First, it's not very good cheating if everyone knows about it; and if they don't know about it, they can't have their overblown emotional response. Without that, there may easily be *no* disruption. Disruption is caused by actual game-breaking, which may or *may not* be the result of cheating.

For that matter, there's nothing wrong with a selfish player. People are selfish. It's the same as cheating: *if* the selfish player disrupts the game, *then* it's a problem. Their motivation doesn't matter; they could selfishly play well. Again, you're injecting unhelpful emotion into the question.

As a side note: I think multiple posters have made it very clear that the GM *can* cheat, and that it *can* be game-breaking for them. The GM should never do things without the approval of the group; this can be general, predetermined approval ('we understand that you might fudge rolls or mods to smooth the game along'), but it must be there.

No I get frustrated when people bring baggage from what happened at band camp and force it down another groups throats. The current group isn't that other group. Why take out your bad experiences from that other group on this group.
That is why I call it either a shield or club. The player either uses that one time at band camp as a shield to justify his actions or uses it as a club to beat the rest into what they wants.


Mind defining "breaking the game"? You have used that term a number of times but have never explained the context.
Is using more build points breaking the game?
Is using only part of the modifiers breaking the game?
Is changing the results of the dice breaking the game?

I do find it intriguing that a GM has to tell and get approval to *cheat* but a player doesn't. If the Gm *cheats* and it's not 'breaking the game' why is it a problem? Why does he need approval and a player doesn't?

To me, it's not a problem at all "If the Gm *cheats* and it's not 'breaking the game'". I think I made that clear. The GM needs approval because the GM needs approval for everything. People are entitled to know exactly what kind of game is being run: what house rules, what interpretations, will there be GM cheating, etc.

I don't think breaking or disrupting the game is unfamiliar to anyone, so I didn't realize a definition was needed. The answer to each of your questions is 'no', per se; however, any of those things could possibly result in breaking. As could not paying attention, distracting people, smelling bad, shooting allies, etc. etc.

Your parable about your kicking your best friend out of a local game starts to make sense.

I understand your frustration with such people 'bringing baggage', but that is precisely what you're doing to the folks with a more lassiez-faire outlook on SR gaming.



All three are examples, yet at the same time none of the three are examples. If the actions taken make the game as it sits unplayable, then the game has been broken.

If it's a PC cyberzombie, complete with bound spirit to boost his essence, that can leap tall buildings in a single bound - probably a game-breaker.

Bloodzilla? Gamebreaker. Succubusia? Gamebreaker. Fudging a dice roll? Probably not.

People are entitled to a fair game, and fair does not always bean 'by the rules'. They are not 'entitled' to be told if the GM is going to fudge some roles because they should assume it. The difference as I see it is that GMs will usually cheat in favor of keeping the players alive more times than not, and occasionally to increase tension for dramatic scenes to help further the story or to keep something balanced that didn't happen as expected. When a player cheats it is almost always to improve an outcome for their character. I agree they are entitled to know house rules if any, but the GM doesn't need approval for anything, they are the boss at the table. If they are an unfair cruel boss they will sit alone at the table.

*Some* posters earlier made it clear that they don't want to assume it. For *them*, the GM should absolutely ask ahead of time, and they would say, 'no, please do not fudge in this game'. People are entitled to *the game they want*, whether that means fair or whatever.

The GM is not the boss. They're just the GM. The group decides things ahead of time. I'm not saying I (personally) don't vote for GM-cheating; it has legitimate uses, as you say. But I'm not about to say that my preference is right for all players and groups.

My point is that if you are running a good game players shouldn't care what goes on behind the screen. Thats why they make screens .

And my point is, why do you need the screen to run a good game?

I find it makes an excellent shield for things like my notes on the current run.

Sure, Congzilla. But, if I were Wounded Ronin (or whoever said it?), I'd want to know that the GM wasn't pulling punches, etc. I'm Yera, so I *don't* care, but not everyone is me.

Anyway, you bring back my other point: if a good game is running, no one should care about cheating, either. There's a good game, so things must be fine. Hehe.

Going WAY back to the OP, let's sum up:
1) GM *mistakes* should be corrected.
2) GM 'cheating'/'tweaking' should have been okayed in the first place, so it's 100% fine.
3) GMs must tweak in a consistent way, or players are unable to know what their working with.

Doc Chase, right: that's the actual point of the screen.

Ironically the only game I use a screen for is WFRP 3e and I never roll behind it. Speaking of screens, am I the only one that prefers landscaped size screens like D&D 4e?

Honesty, we all play with laptops, so it's like everyone has a 'screen'.

That's the thing about it. You continue to use vagary.

What is breaking the game?
What is cheating?

I would have thought by now you would've realized people have different definitions of terms used in an RPG

LOL That would be one of the very few things I ban at the table.

That's not what vagary means.

It seems clear that Doc, Cong, and pretty much everyone else understands 'breaking the game'. It means ruining, disrupting, prematurely ending, making no fun, etc. Not a complicated concept.

Psh, laptops are the best. Searchable PDFs, electric character sheets, google (*always* handy), music… and that's just for 100% face-to-face games.

My only problem with my laptop is that it's too slow. But I game at my desktop as it is, since half my players are over Skype at any given time.

Mine game, e-mail, facebook, WoW,...

I get yelled at for that.

Exactly, to many distractions. Sometimes Ill have mine next to me but no laptops or smart phones for the players. I got sick of waiting for people to figure out what to do on their turn because they had been busy f'in off sending texts or whatnot.

Right, but that's a problem with their focus, not the laptop. We save so much time with the PDFs alone. If they weren't distracted with that (disable the Wifi!), they'd be quoting Monty Python instead.

When people feel more like goofing off than getting into the story is when I hand everyone a pre-made character sheet and say "Welcome to Alpha Complex citizen".