The "is it cheating or not" thread

[Legacy_Shia Luck]

               

NWN DM wrote...

Much ado about nothing.

NWN DM wrote...

Even more ado about nothing.

YOu know.... at least NWNDM is consistent. *grin*  Lowlander could leanr something from him.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Shia Luck, 06 mai 2011 - 04:11 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_VPJ]

               

NWN DM wrote...
Even more ado about nothing.

Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more.

*grin* Can still be amusing to debate the issue, assuming the trolls are kept at bay.

=========
Edit:  removed reference that might be misunderstood.  I'm not calling NWN DM a troll.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par VPJ, 06 mai 2011 - 04:19 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_jmlzemaggo]

               The Times They Are A Changing.
I used to cheat a lot, like a madman. Playing meant cheating.
Not anymore. Lately, I even played NWN a few times proprerly, as a pure hero.
And it was so impressive, that I realised I was even more cheating that way.
Much Ado About Gaming.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_CBrachyrhynchos]

               

Gregor Wyrmbane wrote...

How do you know what the designers intended?

Sure we do. Because in this case, the designers of the ruleset were prolific publishers of printed material, with over a dozen bound monographs and two monthly periodicals (at least in English) for 3e alone on issues of how to balance fun and chalenge. There's more if you consider 1e and other tabletop games as informing the whole CRPG genre. Certainly there's a lot of flexbility in those rules, but basic principles like scaling XP and treasure rewards to effective hit dice and balancing classes like the monk by limiting weapon and armor choices are all there. Munchkins, Mary Sues, and your wonderful reinvention of Elric complete with a godlike Stormbringer need not apply.

Meanwhile, it's not as if the challenges of NWN are especially difficult, not with an abundance of scrolls, books, mysterious carvings, and helpful NPCs who practically tell you how to do it.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               

CBrachyrhynchos wrote...

Gregor Wyrmbane wrote...

How do you know what the designers intended?

Sure we do. Because in this case, the designers of the ruleset were prolific publishers of printed material, with over a dozen bound monographs and two monthly periodicals (at least in English) for 3e alone on issues of how to balance fun and chalenge. There's more if you consider 1e and other tabletop games as informing the whole CRPG genre. Certainly there's a lot of flexbility in those rules, but basic principles like scaling XP and treasure rewards to effective hit dice and balancing classes like the monk by limiting weapon and armor choices are all there. Munchkins, Mary Sues, and your wonderful reinvention of Elric complete with a godlike Stormbringer need not apply.

Meanwhile, it's not as if the challenges of NWN are especially difficult, not with an abundance of scrolls, books, mysterious carvings, and helpful NPCs who practically tell you how to do it.

Then explain perm Haste, Harm, Heal, House rules, and any rule fix in 3.5E. If you speak of Bioware, explain rule fixes in patches; things often fixed first by Techies & Toolsets with feet on the ground.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Elhanan, 06 mai 2011 - 02:11 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Gregor Wyrmbane]

               

CBrachyrhynchos wrote...

Gregor Wyrmbane wrote...

How do you know what the designers intended?

Sure we do. Because in this case, the designers of the ruleset were prolific publishers of printed material, with over a dozen bound monographs and two monthly periodicals (at least in English) for 3e alone on issues of how to balance fun and chalenge. There's more if you consider 1e and other tabletop games as informing the whole CRPG genre. Certainly there's a lot of flexbility in those rules, but basic principles like scaling XP and treasure rewards to effective hit dice and balancing classes like the monk by limiting weapon and armor choices are all there. Munchkins, Mary Sues, and your wonderful reinvention of Elric complete with a godlike Stormbringer need not apply.

Meanwhile, it's not as if the challenges of NWN are especially difficult, not with an abundance of scrolls, books, mysterious carvings, and helpful NPCs who practically tell you how to do it.

I'm reading a lot of assumption and personal opinion in your response, but not a single bit of proof. If you know of any published statement by the people who designed NWN where they specifically stated they never intended for anyone to use their "cheat codes" in SP, or that they consider anyone who does a "cheater", then please post the quote or provide a link. If such doesn't exist, then one can "logically" assume that they consider using the "cheat codes" in SP as playing within the constraints of the game. If that is the case, then my ASSUMPTION is this whole "cheating in SP" issue is something that has been fabricated by a few arrogant elitists who think everyone should be playing the game their way, and anyone who doesn't is somehow morally inferior. Thus their need to label them as "cheaters".
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_muvs32]

               Reading through some, maybe most...but certainly not all of this thread has reminded me of a constitutional law class I had once.

If the Constitution, (exchange for game manual ext.) does not at least implicitly (open to argument there too though) cover a given rule or law, it may not make an given act outside of it legal but it does not necessarily, nor even probably or likely in many instances make the act in question illegal.

For a moment there I thought about changing the whole way I live my life....

But then again I thought, I'm just too lazy to go and change now '>

Thank all for a most entertaining thread, even if much ado' about nothing!
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_CBrachyrhynchos]

               

Elhanan wrote...

Then explain perm Haste, Harm, Heal, House rules, and any rule fix in 3.5E. If you speak of Bioware, explain rule fixes in patches; things often fixed first by Techies & Toolsets with feet on the ground.

It's almost always the case that rule changes and house rules are done with an eye for game balance and playability. Chosing, for example, to adopt a rule that 0hp means the character is unconsious rather than dead to avoid the messy logistics of hauling the body back to a temple, bribing a priest, and making a sales pitch to the gods is a very different thing from maxing out character gold at level 1 or giving a character a kama +7 in a campaign balanced around +3 weapons.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

Gregor Wyrmbane wrote...

I'm reading a lot of assumption and personal opinion in your response, but not a single bit of proof. If you know of any published statement by the people who designed NWN where they specifically stated they never intended for anyone to use their "cheat codes" in SP, or that they consider anyone who does a "cheater", then please post the quote or provide a link. If such doesn't exist, then one can "logically" assume that they consider using the "cheat codes" in SP as playing within the constraints of the game. If that is the case, then my ASSUMPTION is this whole "cheating in SP" issue is something that has been fabricated by a few arrogant elitists who think everyone should be playing the game their way, and anyone who doesn't is somehow morally inferior. Thus their need to label them as "cheaters".

It is a very reasonable assumption that the game was intended to be played without any use of the cheat codes.

The game arrived with 200 page manual about all of it's features.

There is ZERO documentation of the cheat codes in the manual.

If it was intended to played with cheat codes, they would be documented in the instruction manual.

Why are you even on this track? Is this a break from the other cheating rationalizers? Do you actually care how it was intended to be played?  It doesn't seem like the "Single player cheating is impossible" group thinks that designer intent has any effect on the existence of cheating at all.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Lowlander, 06 mai 2011 - 04:06 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Gregor Wyrmbane]

               

Lowlander wrote...

It is a very reasonable assumption that the game was meant to be played without any use of the cheat codes.

The game arrived with 200 page manual about all of it's features.

There is ZERO documentation of the cheat codes in the manual.

If it was intended to played with cheat codes, they would be documented in the instruction manual.

Why are you even on this track? Is this a break from the other cheating rationalizers? Do you actually care how it was intended to be played?  It doesn't seem like the "Single player cheating is impossible" group thinks that designer intent has any effect on the existence of cheating at all.

Your ability to tap dance is dazzling, and your attempts at misdirection noteworthy, but you still haven't answered my question to you, or provided any documentation that the people who designed NWN consider using the "cheat codes" in SP as cheating. Your personal opinion that it is, doesn't make it so.

If you can do that, then perhaps I'll answer your questions about why I'm on this track, and whether or not I care how the game was "intended" to be played. Not that I believe you really want to know.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_CBrachyrhynchos]

               

Gregor Wyrmbane wrote...

I'm reading a lot of assumption and personal opinion in your response, but not a single bit of proof. If you know of any published statement by the people who designed NWN where they specifically stated they never intended for anyone to use their "cheat codes" in SP, or that they consider anyone who does a "cheater", then please post the quote or provide a link.

Sure, Gygax and Suthernland (1979), Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Dungeon Master's Guide is a good start.

If such doesn't exist, then one can "logically" assume that they consider using the "cheat codes" in SP as playing within the constraints of the game.

There are certainly some games where that's the case. I don't think this applies to the NWN official modules where console codes are convenience functions for DMs and module designers, and perfectly viable methods for solving every challenge are provided via object scripts, triggered events, and character abilities via the radial menu.

Sure, I can cheat at chess puzzles and solitaire. There's no harm in doing so, but I can't then pretend I'm following the rules of the games as described by the ICC and Hoyle. Likewise, if I'm spawning unlimited gold and extremely rare high-level equipment directly into my character's inventory, I can't pretend that I'm playing D&D.

There is another aspect at work here which is that we can't praise or criticize the designer's ability to design a game if we can overwrite every design decision he or she makes. If a cheat code is absolutely necessary to solve a particular problem, then the designer has failed in his or her design and testing. A great example of this is Sims2 in which every expansion pack was loaded with game-stopping bugs and cheat codes were sometimes necessary to deal with stuck items or sims that would run off and die off-screen.

If that is the case, then my ASSUMPTION is this whole "cheating in SP" issue is something that has been fabricated by a few arrogant elitists who think everyone should be playing the game their way, and anyone who doesn't is somehow morally inferior. Thus their need to label them as "cheaters".

As I've said clearly multiple times in this thread, there's nothing morally wrong with cheating in SP, and I liberally do it. The difference here is that I acknowledge that I'm breaking the rules of the game in doing so for my convenience.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par CBrachyrhynchos, 06 mai 2011 - 04:15 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

Gregor Wyrmbane wrote...

Your ability to tap dance is dazzling, and your attempts at misdirection noteworthy, but you still haven't answered my question to you, or provided any documentation that the people who designed NWN consider using the "cheat codes" in SP as cheating. Your personal opinion that it is, doesn't make it so.

If you can do that, then perhaps I'll answer your questions about why I'm on this track, and whether or not I care how the game was "intended" to be played. Not that I believe you really want to know.

I was addressing how the game was intended to be played by the designers. Given that no knowledge of the cheat codes shipped with the game, it is only obvious that there was no intention that they be used to play the game. The designers don't need to publish statements indicatiing the obvious.

If you think otherwise the burden of proof is on you you establish it.  

As to if I really want to know where you stand on designer intent, it is because I suspect this line of questioning from you is entirely facetious.

If there were no cheat codes at all and you had to use a third party hack to cheat, I suspect you still wouldn't consider it cheating. Therefore designer intent doesn't enter into wether you consider it cheating at all. So you are involved in line of quesitoning that has nothing to do with your values on this subject. 
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Lowlander, 06 mai 2011 - 04:29 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_CBrachyrhynchos]

               And if people are free to choose the rules they want, it's a self-defeating argument because people can choose to play according to the rules provided by the modules. In fact, it seems that most people would prefer to play that way given the large number of questions along the lines of "How do I defeat ___ with a ___?"

But as I've said above, I cheat all the time on SP games and puzzles. Metagaming the heck out an problem and moving on is a better solution than throwing a tantrum and giving up entirely.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par CBrachyrhynchos, 06 mai 2011 - 04:33 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               

CBrachyrhynchos wrote...

It's almost always the case that rule changes and house rules are done with an eye for game balance and playability. Chosing, for example, to adopt a rule that 0hp means the character is unconsious rather than dead to avoid the messy logistics of hauling the body back to a temple, bribing a priest, and making a sales pitch to the gods is a very different thing from maxing out character gold at level 1 or giving a character a kama +7 in a campaign balanced around +3 weapons.

I disagree, but will put that aside a moment.

Harm allows anyone with access to drop Dragons quickly, among other abuses; truly doubt this was intended. The 3E Ranger was so weak and under-fed that Bioware buffed it up considerably before placing the class into NWN1, all while being told not to fix Harm. Etc.

As far as cheating in a solo game, I am more on the side of those that say it cannot be done. However, I contend that one may cheat themselves thro violation of their own self-imposed restrictins; hence the phrase "Don't spoil it">

Maxing out gold does not violate my own rules, therefore I am not cheating myself. If I spend that gold and aquire a +7 kama, then I might/ would.depending on the setting.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shia Luck]

               

Lowlander wrote...

Edit: You asked for a quote to reference what I am paraphrasing, it
isn't worth bumping the thread for it, but here is a section from your
first post as reference:

Well at least I got an answer for once. Nice to know "it isn't worth bumping the thread" to answer my question, but I guess I should be happy you deigned to acknowledge my existence. Now try replying to one of the arguments I make cause all you have done so far is keep changing the reason why you think you are justified to feel this way as I prove each one unjustified or not logical.

Lowlander wrote...

Shia Luck wrote...

I think it is rather rude of you to completely ignore my first post in this thread in which I detail the logic of that argument. kail has also explained it.

How did I ignore it? I paraphrased exactly what is in your first post of this thread. You are relying on the definition of the word "cheat" from the dictionary and stating that according to other uses of cheat, there must be a wronged party. 

Actually you didn't, you said it was wrong for my definition to rely on multiple people. But I can answer this one too if you like.

If there is no wronged party.... why does it make you feel sick? You have claimed that you are wronged by someone else cheating in an SP game. It's the only thing you have been consistent about.

The orginal one with your own bold type is...

Lowlander wrote...
My original paraphrase:

Lowlander wrote...
Because from my perspective all I have
seen so far, is a reliance on a narrow interpretation of the word, that
defines it to only have meaning when more than one person is involved.

That isn't a logical argument, it is simply an attempt to use a limited definition and ignore that for decades in the context of computer gaming, the word "cheat" has no such limitation.

You are claiming that someone else performing SP cheating injurs you. Therefore more than one person is involved. This is not exactly difficult logic.

Lowlander wrote...
I don't care if the word is cheat or smurf or whatever.  But "cheat"
happens to be the one in common usage for this activity.  You aren't
going to succeed in changing the vocabulary around this and even if you
did, it would change nothing.

I don't care what word you use. I do care which meaning. Cheat has multiple meanings. When used about SP computer games the meaning is very different to it's other meanings. For example, we say the sun comes up and flowers come up. You are trying to argue that because of the language use, the sun literally comes UP. Why can't you admit how ridiculous this is?

You also claim SP cheating is the same as MP cheating or cheating in an exam.

Lowlander wrote...
 It is promoting the activity that I dislike, changing the term used for it, would change nothing. 

Yes, it is simply that you dislike it even tho you have no justification. So you attempt to equate cheating in SP computer games with cheating in an exam to give yourself cause to denigrate and belittle other people. For example:

Lowlander wrote...

I shouldn't be surprised in this
shortcut, instant gratifications, cheating is OK if you don't get
caught, society that so many just use cheat codes to pimp their
characters rather than deal with the constraints of the game. But this
Attitude makes me sick.   [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/sick.png[/smilie]

... Heck these days people are more proud
of themselves when the get good results from academic cheating:

http://www.cheatingc...mic-dishonesty/

Lowlander wrote...
If you are upset that I hold some level of disdain for the activity being promoted, and speak my mind on it,  you are free to ignore me.

I am also free to consistently prove you have no grounds for your arrogant moral posturing. I like philosophy so it's no trouble to keep doing it. It's remarkably easy to do with your inconsistent and self contradictory arguments. At some point you will run out of these poorly thought out reasons. Until then, I'll be here.

have fun '>

(btw can we do the I-play-on-hardcore-and-you-play-on-normal-so-I-am-better-than-you argument next? Cos it has as much validity. *laughing*)
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Shia Luck, 06 mai 2011 - 06:27 .