The "is it cheating or not" thread

[Legacy_AmstradHero]

               

Elhanan wrote...

Sorry, but as Ser Gygax never attended any of my weekly sessions for lo' those many years, you stopped being the DM when you gave your tale to the Vault. In m/p, that task is oft designated to the one wanting to run the DM client, and it may surprise you to note that they often 'Play' at the same time. In much the same way, the Player assumes the mantle of DM, and sets and molds the story being told with their rules, guidelines, and parameters. They choose the story to play that session; not the DM they wish to tell it.

Besides, you seem rather stressed already in your role as Mod Designer. All those examples of me, my, personal pronouns of choice, etc in seperating us in our roles as Players have appeared to left you with what is sometimes called 'I' strain. Thanks for the tales; now leave the driving to us.

I know I said I was out, but here you've demonstrated a complete inability to grasp the point

Gygax wasn't the DM. The person who wrote any pre-defined adventure you played wasn't the DM. Your DM was the DM. In an SP experience, the designer acts as the DM to create the adventure and the encounters and everything within it, and the computer acts as the DM by proxy for the player when they are actually playing the game.

As Andarian rightly points out, by claiming you can take on the role of player AND DM at the same time, you're grossly misunderstanding the role of the DM in the first place, if not the entire concept around which D&D was created.

As a closing point - imagine for one second that you're not playing a game based on the D&D ruleset. Say you're playing an RTS, and you decide to give yourself some extra gold because "controlling the peasants to collect the gold is too tedious'. Can you argue for a second that this isn't cheating? Do you think anyone else who plays the RTS would consider it not cheating?  Or you're playing an FPS and you use a console command to give yourself some extra ammunition because it's too tedious to trek across the map to get some in a cache you know exists.

Hiding behind the shield of "it's D&D so I can make up the rules" doesn't fly for any other game genre.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               

AmstradHero wrote...

I know I said I was out, but here you've demonstrated a complete inability to grasp the point

Gygax wasn't the DM. The person who wrote any pre-defined adventure you played wasn't the DM. Your DM was the DM. In an SP experience, the designer acts as the DM to create the adventure and the encounters and everything within it, and the computer acts as the DM by proxy for the player when they are actually playing the game.

As Andarian rightly points out, by claiming you can take on the role of player AND DM at the same time, you're grossly misunderstanding the role of the DM in the first place, if not the entire concept around which D&D was created.

As a closing point - imagine for one second that you're not playing a game based on the D&D ruleset. Say you're playing an RTS, and you decide to give yourself some extra gold because "controlling the peasants to collect the gold is too tedious'. Can you argue for a second that this isn't cheating? Do you think anyone else who plays the RTS would consider it not cheating?  Or you're playing an FPS and you use a console command to give yourself some extra ammunition because it's too tedious to trek across the map to get some in a cache you know exists.

Hiding behind the shield of "it's D&D so I can make up the rules" doesn't fly for any other game genre.

I reckon I am willing to place my RPG inexperience on the line.

Nope; Gygax was not the DM anymore than the prior claims of the Mod Dev's. My point exactly. And remember the solo D&D mod's? Guess who was the DM then? Surprise! As I recall, it was the Player themselves.

Imagine I can play RTS or FPS. One question though: Am I playing solo? Sure doesn;t read like it AH, but you would not make that big an error, even crossing over genres. But I will play.... 

Adding more gold or ammo in a m/p setting may be cheating, as it may give an unfair advantage over other Players. But let us pretend that all agreed to add unlimited gold and ammo to every Player, and all are on even terms. Still cheating?

Now back to NWN1: In a solo game, the Player sets and monitors the rules; thus they DM themselves.One may choose to play all default setting; another may choose to max HP, Both are correct as it is their own game. If they break those rules which result in possibly spoiling their experience with the game, then they may be cheating.

You wish to get credit for making the mods; here is to all of you! Thanks! But if for a moment you believe such creativity grants you the role of authority over the Player, then perhaps I am not the one with the inability to understand.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Skelhorn]

               To cheat or not to cheat? To break the rules or abide by them?

To my mind this age old argument comes down to our definition of these terms.

'Cheating' means to break the rules. From what I can see there is common understanding and agreement on this. The real issue then is on how we define 'the rules'.

In the one camp - lets call these guys 'Chaotics' - are those that define the rules as being dynamic, flexible, yielding. Not so much rules as 'whatever I feel is right at the time'. The only rule is that there are no rules. The logic of this argument seems irrefutable. By defining the rules in this way it becomes impossible to break them, impossible to cheat.

In the other camp - the 'Lawfuls' - are those that define the rules more specifically. For them the rules are those that are more commonly accepted as universal, as in chess, cards or marriage. Or those rules defined by the game designer or module creator. Using cheat codes or any other technique outside those defined by this criteria would certainly be breaking the rules and considered cheating.

So who is right?

Both are. Both camps are correct according to their own definition of the rules.

So the next question arises: 'whose definition of the rules is correct?' The Chaotics think that their own personal definition is more important than any other. The Lawfuls believe that the more universally accepted definition takes precedence.

Well this is philosophy. Or as we like to say 'alignment'. Who is to say that my belief system is more valid than yours? The axis of Law/Chaos is not called the axis of Right/Wrong any more than it is called the axis of Wrong/Right.

It is interesting to think how much our perception is determined by our perspective. How our experiences are shaped by our definitions of ourselves and our world that we hold to be true, but that in reality are subjective beliefs.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Skelhorn, 10 mai 2011 - 11:02 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_AmstradHero]

               Interesting philosophical diversion, Skelhorn. But if rules are completely flexible and can be changed however the player likes, what is the point in having them in the first place? Why not just have the player being invincible, or reincarnate with all their skill points and abilities after death? Why not enable them to kill enemies in a single blow that never misses?

The rules exist because the game designer created them to introduce tension, engagement and challenge. Without the rules all you have is an interactive movie or a book. There's no element of skill or luck involved around which all virtually all "games" (of any sort) are based.

Call me a "lawful" all you like, but where you're modifying the rules that were designed to underpin the entire mechanics of the game to suit your own personal taste or whims, that is the definition of cheating. Unless you redefine the English language, there is no avoiding this.

Elhanan: We're not discussing MP here, and by bringing it up, you've avoided the question entirely.

I don't remember any solo D&D adventures I'm afraid. But I'm going to guess that they didn't say things like "If you get killed by these kobolds, don't worry. Just bring yourself back to life through divine intervention." or "Feel free to give yourself a mace of disruption right now, because you might want it to make your life easier against all the undead you're about to face."

It's like the Fighting Fantasy books - sure you could just go "oh, I have to fight... well, I just win this fight automatically." You were free to do that, I'm sure I did on some occasions while reading them. But that was cheating, because I wasn't playing by the established rules of the game/book - thus ruining the excitement of going around and defeating a dangerous creature while battered and bruised after my last fight.

I'm not claiming ultimate authority over the player. As a mod designer, I don't care if players use console commands to play my mods. But if they do so, they're not playing as I designed. They're not adhering to the rules of D&D, nor the setting that I created for them. Plainly put, they're cheating. I don't care if they cheat. Not one iota. But to say that they aren't cheating is an untenable position.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Malagant]

               

And remember the solo D&D mod's? Guess who was the DM then? Surprise! As I recall, it was the Player themselves.

I assume you're referencing the old 80's modules that utilized the whole "invisible ink" and colored film and not the ones that required a DM and a single player? Those could best be described as solitare modules as opposed to solo (although they were advertised as "solo"). The whole point of the solitare modules (like BSOLO, CM5, MSOL1, etc) were that they specifically required no DM which kind of kills the whole player as DM thing.

If the player is also acting DM in the solitare modules, then all those Choose Your Own Adventure and Which Way books that were also popular back then could be classified as role-playing games with the reader as DM and that just doesn't cut either.

Adding more gold or ammo in a m/p setting may be cheating, as it may give an unfair advantage over other Players. But let us pretend that all agreed to add unlimited gold and ammo to every Player, and all are on even terms. Still cheating?

That seems to be a slightly loaded question. If the mod / world allots unlimited gold as part of its play and an integral part of that mod's constructed system, how could it be considered cheating?

In a solo game, the Player sets and monitors the rules; thus they DM themselves.One may choose to play all default setting; another may choose to max HP, Both are correct as it is their own game...

I would have to disagree for the simple fact that utilizing the options given to you within the structure of the game is not setting or monitoring the rules, unless the player has access to and is able to make adjustments to the hard-coded elements within the game. The player is not deciding how the rolls are made, what the physics of the environment are, the strength of the creatures (outside the provided difficulty option), the NPCs and their interaction with the player, or anything else within the modules environment which are functions of a DM.

The best way I can characterize this is by going back to those books all those years ago: The reader could certainly choose to continue to page 36 or the other option to page 15 then, should they not like where the page they chose is going, go back and choose the other option but that doesn't make them a DM. I look at SP mods the same way: you can choose a different direction, different options, restart, respawn, even adjust difficulty, but you aren't really controlling anything in-game but yourself and that is not DMing in my book.

But if for a moment you believe such creativity grants you the role of authority over the Player, then perhaps I am not the one with the inability to understand.

I think i can understand where the outlook you have comes from, but I can see the other side, if I am understanding it correctly, in that the mod designer has no authority over the player except by proxy but the mod they created most certainly does unless one were to go into the toolset and manually adjust scripts and resources.

I suppose, in closing, I am saying that the only logical way a player can take on a dual role as DM is if they are playing an SP mod that they had created / developed themselves.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Malagant, 10 mai 2011 - 11:52 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Skelhorn]

               

AmstradHero wrote...

But if rules are completely flexible and can be changed however the player likes, what is the point in having them in the first place? Why not just have the player being invincible, or reincarnate with all their skill points and abilities after death? Why not enable them to kill enemies in a single blow that never misses?

The rules exist because the game designer created them to introduce tension, engagement and challenge. Without the rules all you have is an interactive movie or a book. There's no element of skill or luck involved around which all virtually all "games" (of any sort) are based.

Ultimately this is opinion based on your belief (and that of many people including myself) that such things as challenge, immersion or whatever are major factors of enjoyment and are significantly reduced when you change the rules in this way.

Others may define their enjoyment differently according to their own agenda. You and I may see this as pointless. They may see our way of playing as boring or unnecessarily time consuming. Neither approach is any more valid than the other.

AmstradHero wrote...

Call me a "lawful" all you like, but where you're modifying the rules that were designed to underpin the entire mechanics of the game to suit your own personal taste or whims, that is the definition of cheating. Unless you redefine the English language, there is no avoiding this.

Well at least I didn't say Lawful Evil... '>

Not that there is anything wrong with that. *quickly checks over shoulder*

Although I think we agree on game playing philosophy I have to disagree on your definition of cheating. I stand by what I said before. If you and I play a game of 'Chezz TM' which is played on 64 squares and has no rules. You would need to go a long way to convice me I was cheating. There have to be rules involved for cheating to occur.

Lets put this another way and go back to spawning in 'uber gloves of utter destruction +10' for our monk.

If you or I did this it would be cheating. If one of the 'Chaotics' did this it would not be. It is entirely subjective.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Skelhorn, 10 mai 2011 - 12:17 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_AndarianTD]

               

Elhanan wrote...

Sorry, but as Ser Gygax never attended any of my weekly sessions for lo' those many years, you stopped being the DM when you gave your tale to the Vault.

"Gave my tale to the Vault?" Since when? My "tale" is my own intellectual property and hasn't been "given" to anyone, thank you very much. My work, Sir, is not a gift.

And for your information, my mods are hosted on my own website, not on the Vault; what my Vault pages contain are
links to those downloads. That happens to be Vault policy for authors who want to retain control of their work rather than "give it away" -- as I happen to know very well, since I helped Maximus write it.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 10 mai 2011 - 12:32 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_olivier leroux]

               Even though there were interesting points from both sides and personally I guess I tend to sympathize with the definitions of ArmstradHero and Andarian, I have to say the most convincing post for me - and probably the only one able to conclude the discussion in a more satisfying (though less funny) way than TSMDude's last one - is that by Skelhorn.

We have (at least) two diametrically opposed views here and it's very unlikely anyone is going to convince the other side to change their attitude towards the matter at hand, no matter how good the arguments. And in the end, what does it matter to you what someone else believes in and what labels they give themselves? You don't have to understand it, you don't have to agree with it, but what's the use in fighting over it, when it comes to something so personal and subjective? The only lesson I can see here is not to look down on other people's beliefs and not to patronize them, just because you don't agree with them. As long as they don't affect anyone else in a negative way, just look the other way and move on if it's not your cup of tea.

As an author you're always giving up control when you share your works with the public. You can be sure that not all recipients will understand and use your work in the way you've foreseen. That can be a good thing or a bad thing but it's a given, something you've got to live with as an artist.

And regarding NWN, I believe there are enough players who will try to play a module according to the authors' rules that the authors don't need to worry about the "chaotic" faction who won't. Just keep on designing with the "lawful" faction in mind and both sides will be happy.

And that's just my own point of view, of course, but one *I* find very convincing and superior to the rest! '>
/irony :innocent:
               
               

               

                     Modifié par olivier leroux, 10 mai 2011 - 12:45 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Skelhorn]

               

olivier leroux wrote...

Even though there were interesting points from both sides and personally I guess I tend to sympathize with the definitions of ArmstradHero and Andarian, I have to say the most convincing post for me - and probably the only one able to conclude the discussion in a more satisfying (though less funny) way than TSMDude's last one - is that by Skelhorn.

Ah but did you notice how I cunningly brought alignment into the thread?

All I need now is Wizards v Sorcerers and we have the perfect storm.

Here goes:
"Lawful Wizards who cheat are better than Chaotic Sorcerers who don't." :innocent:
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Skelhorn, 10 mai 2011 - 12:44 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_jmlzemaggo]

               Chaotic is the only lawful attitude.
Just kidding!
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_olivier leroux]

               Wait a moment, Skelhorn, did I just read between the lines that you're implying sorcerers are evil? You did, didn't you? I know you did. And I refuse to accept "sorcerer" as a valid label in this discussion because this isn't about hexing and I never put a spell on anyone! Um...

               
               

               

                     Modifié par olivier leroux, 10 mai 2011 - 12:50 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               Hi! I guess I am 'Neutral'!

I believe that you can cheat in solo game if you break the various, sliding parameters you set for yourself; thus spoiling the gameplay,

But unlike alignments (which I loathe, but I digress), the Chaotics ain't trying to brand me; the Paladin zealots are the ones with that task.

Malagant wrote...

I assume you're referencing the old 80's modules that utilized the whole "invisible ink" and colored film and not the ones that required a DM and a single player? Those could best be described as solitare modules as opposed to solo (although they were advertised as "solo"). The whole point of the solitare modules (like BSOLO, CM5, MSOL1, etc) were that they specifically required no DM which kind of kills the whole player as DM thing.

If the player is also acting DM in the solitare modules, then all those Choose Your Own Adventure and Which Way books that were also popular back then could be classified as role-playing games with the reader as DM and that just doesn't cut either.

I actually do not recall the details; just remember running a solo mod for myself to test the gameplay and setting. There was no colored film or special ink, though. And they are packed in crates somewhere in storage,

That seems to be a slightly loaded question. If the mod / world allots unlimited gold as part of its play and an integral part of that mod's constructed system, how could it be considered cheating?

I was asked to imagine if I were using commands ito gain gold/ammo in a RTS/ FPS. As I do not actually play either of them, I have no idea if these require special commands or not; just tried to answer the puzzle presented.

But the same generalities applies for me: If the player violates conditions he set for himself, then they may be cheating. If it is a m/p environment, and the players agree to a set of rules, and a Player violates those rules, it may be cheating. If the Player uses varient rather than the Default settings, and is playing solo; not cheating.

I would have to disagree for the simple fact that utilizing the options given to you within the structure of the game is not setting or monitoring the rules, unless the player has access to and is able to make adjustments to the hard-coded elements within the game. The player is not deciding how the rolls are made, what the physics of the environment are, the strength of the creatures (outside the provided difficulty option), the NPCs and their interaction with the player, or anything else within the modules environment which are functions of a DM.

They are though, when they accept the mod itself. The Players choose whether to allow the game to make the rolls, or perhaps to use the console commands; whether to accept the physics of the mod, or vary it,; whether to alter the creatures, interaction, etc. They become the DM.

The best way I can characterize this is by going back to those books all those years ago: The reader could certainly choose to continue to page 36 or the other option to page 15 then, should they not like where the page they chose is going, go back and choose the other option but that doesn't make them a DM. I look at SP mods the same way: you can choose a different direction, different options, restart, respawn, even adjust difficulty, but you aren't really controlling anything in-game but yourself and that is not DMing in my book.

Guess we use different books. If I am running a solo game, I am taking on the mantle of DM and Player. When I break rules that were set by myself (ie; DM), and spoil the gameplay, then I may be cheating. In your book, you allow the default rules of the book to be your DM, I guess.

I think i can understand where the outlook you have comes from, but I can see the other side, if I am understanding it correctly, in that the mod designer has no authority over the player except by proxy but the mod they created most certainly does unless one were to go into the toolset and manually adjust scripts and resources.

I cannot change scripts, but have used the command codes and funtions to alter the resources for play; may have even used the DM Client or Toolset once, but that was to try and make a fix on a door/ bug. It is my game afterall. The mod has no authority, in my book.

I suppose, in closing, I am saying that the only logical way a player can take on a dual role as DM is if they are playing an SP mod that they had created / developed themselves.

Nice stab at compromise, but I disagree. As I am able to alter and change the mod with the tools and commands of my own game, and am the one deciding which rules to use for play, I am both DM and Player,
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Skelhorn]

               

olivier leroux wrote...

Wait a moment, Skelhorn, did I just read between the lines that you're implying sorcerers are evil?

Only the ones who cheat... (unless it's part of their belief system that is) '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_AmstradHero]

               

Skelhorn wrote...
Although I think we agree on game playing philosophy I have to disagree on your definition of cheating. I stand by what I said before. If you and I play a game of 'Chezz TM' which is played on 64 squares and has no rules. You would need to go a long way to convice me I was cheating. There have to be rules involved for cheating to occur.

We're also no longer playing chess. And if we said we were, people would look at you strangely and wonder what you talking about.

I applaud your different take on the thread, and it has become increasingly obvious that no manner of argument is going to convince people who choose to bend or modify the rules to their whim that they are doing anything out of the ordinary. The distinction, and the choice, is simple:

If someone bends the rules they are either:
(a) No longer playing the same game.
( Cheating.

Considering that I doubt anyone would say that they're no longer playing D&D, we're left with option (. But the people adamantly defending their right to change the rules however they like declare that's not cheating, despite that being the literal definition. It's not subjective if that is the definition of the word. To argue otherwise is almost like saying "giraffe" means "a small domestic animal that barks". Oh well, I guess English isn't what it used to be.

And now I really do think that I've repeated myself enough in this thread. I can only go around in circles so much before getting dizzy and fed up with the discussion.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_AndarianTD]

               With all due respect to Olivier, I think there is more at stake here than just "labels." Several key factual disagreements have been aired here that aren't just matters of opinion. Those include understanding the nature of games, and the role of rules in how they structure gameplay; and the role of the DM in an RPG, which a number of folks here clearly do not get at all. What's at stake in the discussion? Little to nothing, since it's largely an academic digression.

That is, unless you're a game designer. To us, understanding the nature of games and how to make them (let alone make them good) is of important and professional interest. That's the only reason I've been motivated to post on this thread, long after it had become an exercise in necrotic equine abuse. I've already said what I wanted to say on the subject, though, and don't really have anything further to add.