PDA

View Full Version : How should I handle another player possibly cheating?



Number 6
2008-08-08, 01:07 PM
A fellow player in a game is always bragging how his character is so much more powerful than the rest of ours. I can live with this; there's at least one like this in every group. Problem is, last week he picked a fight with my character to show off how much more powerful his character was. He was dealing out totally impossible amounts of damage in unarmed combat. I asked him (nicely) how he did it, and he said it was a secret. I've been through the rule book trying to figure out how he did it. He keeps his character sheet hidden at all times so I can't sneak a peek and see how he does it.

It would be really rude to force the issue because that would show that I think he's bending or misusing a rule somewhere. He might not be intentionally cheating; maybe he misinterpreted a rule. Should I:

A Ignore it because he's not hurting anyone.
B Assume that he rolled really lucky every round
C Politely tell him that I don't see how he can do so much damage and ask him to explain.
D Ask the GM privately if she knows how. (this could be very tricky because they are very good friends)

or another option?

Burley
2008-08-08, 01:12 PM
This is munchkinery. Pure and dirty.
The other player isn't playing a co-op game. He's playing a game against the other players. It isn't fair to you or any other player to have to play against a teammate. If he refuses to show you his sheet, definately ask the GM if she knows what's going on, and if she feels it's fair. If the player is a jerk, the GM should be quelching the jerkitude. If it turns out that the GM is also a jerk, it's not worth wasting your time to play with a couple o' jerks.

kamikasei
2008-08-08, 01:13 PM
"It's a secret" is bull and suggests an immaturity about this player that makes most normal options difficult. You could try couching it in terms of "I can't figure out how you'd do it, so I'd like to see it explained in case I'm misunderstanding some rule".

Or, describe everything you know about the character here and I'm sure the boards have the wherewithal to reverse-engineer most legal builds.

Jayabalard
2008-08-08, 01:14 PM
Tell him: "I think that you're either accidentally or intentionally misinterpreting a rule; please explain."

AKA_Bait
2008-08-08, 01:19 PM
Tell him: "I think that you're either accidentally or intentionally misinterpreting a rule; please explain."

This is what I'd go with. But then, as a player, I'm a big fan of confrontation about the rules, especially when a player is picking fights within the party.

valadil
2008-08-08, 01:21 PM
Your GM most definitely should have access to the player's character sheet. Could you get the GM to verify that the character works without breaking any rules?

You could only agree to combat the other character if he shows you the sheet. If not, then play your own hidden character sheet character which is even more broken than his. But that's the pedant's way out and it probably won't actually fix anything.

I've never seen serious cheating. There was a guy who rolled initiative away from the table, and ALWAYS got a 20. Nobody said anything because it was just initiative. There was another guy who always forgot his character sheet, but had it memorized and rebuilt the character every game. Major stuff was consistent but his skills shifted around suspiciously. Again, it wasn't worth the drama of accusing someone of cheating. Oddly enough, the guy who shifted skills like that was our group's braggart and wouldn't show us his Magic decks either.

D&D is a fun and friendly game. If you accuse someone of cheating, whether or not they cheated you can't go back to the same happy table afterward, especially if that character sticks around. I think it's only really worth the trouble of accusing someone of cheating if they're ruining the game for everyone else. How do the other players feel?

Tadanori Oyama
2008-08-08, 01:28 PM
I've never had to deal with cheating unless I'm the DM. I have had to deal with character fights. My brother plays with me sometimes and can't seperate his personal feelings from character actions.

I say call him on it, hell be damned with hurt feelings. Players who attack their allies aren't players I want around.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-08-08, 01:31 PM
Unless he's playing Xellos (totally obscure reference yay!), ask the GM. Politely.

Now I, personally, don't like other PCs picking serious, hitting fights with mine (catfights, however...). If it were me, I'd talk to the GM about that as well, but that's a matter of personal preference.

Telonius
2008-08-08, 01:31 PM
What race/class is this guy playing?

Regarding unarmed strikes in general, it's difficult to cheese out lots of unarmed damage per hit, even for a Monk. The Monk's base unarmed strike caps out at 2d10 (average 11, max 20) at level 20. If the Monk is Strength-focused, if he has power attack, if the DM allows him to use a two-handed unarmed strike as though it were a two-handed weapon, if he has access to Greater Mighty Wallop, and if he has Improved Natural Attack... then yes, you could get a pretty large amount of unarmed damage. But that's a whole lot of ifs strung together, and at the end of it all, you're still playing a Monk.

SpydersWebbing
2008-08-08, 01:34 PM
If the DM refuses to fix it (which he should) there's two options:

1) Leave the gaming group.

OR (if you're up for a challenge)

2) Engineer a way to screw him in game. As in: "Oops! I left you in the room with a sleeping red dragon, who's awake now! And I locked the door! Fancy that..."

Mastikator
2008-08-08, 01:36 PM
I'd probably flat out accuse him of cheating and demand that he proves me wrong. If the GM sides with him I'd leave the group. No threats about leaving to make them behave, just pick up my stuff and say goodbye. It's easier to find a new group than it is to "fix" a bad one while enduring it out.
Honestly I'd rather not play at all than have to put out with that kind of crap :/

Starsinger
2008-08-08, 01:36 PM
D&D is a fun and friendly game. If you accuse someone of cheating, whether or not they cheated you can't go back to the same happy table afterward, especially if that character sticks around. I think it's only really worth the trouble of accusing someone of cheating if they're ruining the game for everyone else. How do the other players feel?

So, it's okay that they're cheating? If you're willing to allow someone to break the rules because you don't want to bother ruining someone's fun, why have rules at all? All that comes from not saying something is the message that its okay that they cheat, since nobody is going to say anything.

monty
2008-08-08, 01:55 PM
So, it's okay that they're cheating? If you're willing to allow someone to break the rules because you don't want to bother ruining someone's fun, why have rules at all? All that comes from not saying something is the message that its okay that they cheat, since nobody is going to say anything.

Look at it from the other side: if you're having fun, why do you care if he's cheating? It's just a game.

Telonius
2008-08-08, 02:00 PM
Sometimes you have to follow the Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool), the Rule of Funny (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfFunny), and the Rule of Fun (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfFun). If everybody is enjoying themselves, who cares? But if somebody's feeling slighted, then that's neither cool, funny, nor fun.

Jayabalard
2008-08-08, 02:00 PM
Look at it from the other side: if you're having fun, why do you care if he's cheating? It's just a game.It doesn't sound like the OP is having fun to me; it sounds like the OP has a situation where one player is being disruptive and making things generally unfun, but that the OP can live with it. "Can live with it" is not the same thing as "Having fun"

FMArthur
2008-08-08, 02:09 PM
This is how that would've turned out in any group I've been in:

"You do a trillion damage?"
"Yeah."
"How?"
"It's a secret."
"Let me see your character sheet."
"No."
"Well, in any case, I reflect the attack back onto your character as unavoidable, irreducable damage as an immediate action."
"What! How?"
"It's a secret."

SpydersWebbing
2008-08-08, 02:10 PM
This is how that would've turned out in any group I've been in:

"You do a trillion damage?"
"Yeah."
"How?"
"It's a secret."
"Let me see your character sheet."
"No."
"Well, in any case, I reflect the attack back onto your character as unavoidable, irreducable damage as an immediate action."
"What! How?"
"It's a secret."

This man, people is a genius. Props to him.

Stormageddon
2008-08-08, 02:14 PM
Guy sounds like a complete loser to me. Cheating at D&D is one of the silliest things a person could do. One: because it's (lets face it) very easy to do. Two: it makes the game less fun, and that's why people play there's no cash payout for completing a adventure.

Keeping a "secret charter sheets" sounds like he's trying to bate you into a conflict.

If the DM is allowing him to do this than I would quit.

Frosty
2008-08-08, 02:18 PM
Keeping a sheet secret isp erfectly ok, as long as the DM gets to see it. Sometimes you don't want other players knowing exactly what you are. Hey, there's ap layer in my group who wanted to fool the other players into thinking that his Companion Familiar is the PC while in reality the Horse that the Familiar rides on is the PC who is an Arcaen Hierophant.

Adumbration
2008-08-08, 02:20 PM
Just out of pure curiosity... On what level is he?

Theoretically it is possible to dish out quite large amount of unarmed damage, but it requires a large amount of books, multiclassing and a high level of understanding of rules. A good example of this is Dman's monk build. Changeling monk/Fist of the forest/Initiate of Draconic Mysteries/Warshaper and some other stuff I can't remember. I checked it a while ago, and it deals 30d8 unarmed damage at level 20.

But speaking of actual games - I've never seen such a build in a real game - I would suggest you take the good advice of people here. Honestly, that kind of behaviour is pretty ugly.

Xyk
2008-08-08, 02:26 PM
This is how that would've turned out in any group I've been in:

"You do a trillion damage?"
"Yeah."
"How?"
"It's a secret."
"Let me see your character sheet."
"No."
"Well, in any case, I reflect the attack back onto your character as unavoidable, irreducable damage as an immediate action."
"What! How?"
"It's a secret."

I like this one.

playswithfire
2008-08-08, 02:33 PM
Or, describe everything you know about the character here and I'm sure the boards have the wherewithal to reverse-engineer most legal builds.

I second this; at the very least, what level are you and what kind of damage output are we talking about? I'm curious; I like maxing out unarmed damage

PnP Fan
2008-08-08, 03:00 PM
Okay number 6 (are you a cylon?) You've got a pretty complicated situation here. First thing you need to decide is what your relationship is with this other player, and the DM. Do you trust them? Are either of them someone you classify as a friend? Or are they just a couple of guys you game with from a game club? Is it possible that they are just yanking your chain about something?
Once you've figured this out, you need to make some value decisions. How long is this game going to last? Is their companionship worth playing in an un-fun game? Is the accusation of cheating worth the drama that is sure to follow? Is leaving the group going to be more annoying that sticking around until the next campaign?
Decide on what your goal is, and then figure out your plan of action.
Keep in mind, just because you call something into question, doesn't mean you have to be a jerk about it. There are other ways besides direct confrontation and accusation. Humor is often a good way to get your point across while maintaining civility. It could be minor, "Hey the door is locked, could you come over and slay the door for me?!" or you could take it to the point of ridicule, "If he does more HP damage than the creature has left, does it transfer to the next guy in line?" I'd try to find out what's going on first, before I made any accusations of cheating. Who knows, maybe he's actually some kind of spellcaster, channeling his spell damage through his fists instead? Sure, it's retarded to do so, but right now you don't really know what's going on, other than it looks fishy. If he's not cheating, and you accuse him of cheating, well, that's a hard road to come back from.

Of course, if you find out that he's cheating, or the DM is playing favorites, well, I'd let them have their game and stop showing up. You might tell them they suck, but it probably won't register. Your actions will speak louder.

valadil
2008-08-08, 03:02 PM
So, it's okay that they're cheating? If you're willing to allow someone to break the rules because you don't want to bother ruining someone's fun, why have rules at all? All that comes from not saying something is the message that its okay that they cheat, since nobody is going to say anything.

I'm not saying it's okay, just that if it's harmless enough it may not be worth the effort of confronting him. We had a newb join our 3.5 group. His sorc had an 18 charisma, but he wrote down a +5 bonus. The rest of the players decided not to say anything because the character was so crap that even with the bonus he was underpowered. In this particular case, it wasn't worth the trouble of a confrontation.

Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who prefers a rules light game and would rather play the game with a misinterpreted rule than scour books at the expense of playing.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-08-08, 03:21 PM
What books does he bring to the game? My first guess would be that he's playing a martial adept. If that's the case, he'd have to declare his maneuvers before making an attack, and if he doesn't, then he doesn't get to use the maneuver for that attack. It's like a Wizard who has prepared multiple Ray of Flame (1st level spell) and multiple metamagic Enervations. If he just says he's casting a spell and rolls to hit, any hit would be an Enervation and any miss/wasted spell would be a Ray of Flame. Characters have to declare out loud their actions, particularly their limited-use abilities, before making any rolls, and this should be strictly enforced in all games. Furthermore, if he is playing a martial adept, then he's probably readied multiples of the same maneuver which is not allowed; he may only have one of each maneuver he knows readied at any given time. Finally, as per the rules, if he makes an attack without declaring any special maneuvers or actions, even if he'd intended to use one, he shouldn't be allowed to add it to that attack, because him not declaring it makes his character incapable of using it for that attack.

Discuss this with your DM in private, ask that these rules be enforced, and see what happens from there. Secret characters and keeping your character's use of abilities private until the outcome is revealed have no place in this game.

snoopy13a
2008-08-08, 03:31 PM
Just out of curiosity, wouldn't this be a possible strategy to defeat anyone's character?

1) Tell the DM when your party is resting for the night: "My character has to get up at 4 AM because he/she has to go to the bathroom"

2) Walk over to where the munchkin's character is sleeping

3) Coupe de Grace the munckin while he's sleeping

4) End up getting in a fist fight with the other player :smalltongue:

KBF
2008-08-08, 03:36 PM
Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who prefers a rules light game and would rather play the game with a misinterpreted rule than scour books at the expense of playing.


No, scouring books is how feat X that gives a +2 bonus to grappling stacks with special bonus Y and what part of grappling it applies to. That is just "Hey, 18 is actually +4, not +5." Then you've fixed a small problem that no one really cares about fixing.

Big problems like "my weapon does 123d100 +1337 damage," generally ruin games.

xPANCAKEx
2008-08-08, 03:39 PM
this is what DMs are for: ask them to check if the sheet is legal. If it is, stop worrying.

Saph
2008-08-08, 03:46 PM
Knights of the Dinner table had a scenario like this. They were playing a 'module' where they kept getting hit with all sorts of damage and effects that just shouldn't be possible. Whenever they asked the guy running the module what was happening, he'd just ignore them.

Finally they figured out that they were getting bent over because they were playing by the rules and the other guy wasn't. So they stopped playing by the rules as well.

- Saph

sikyon
2008-08-08, 03:52 PM
This is how that would've turned out in any group I've been in:

"You do a trillion damage?"
"Yeah."
"How?"
"It's a secret."
"Let me see your character sheet."
"No."
"Well, in any case, I reflect the attack back onto your character as unavoidable, irreducable damage as an immediate action."
"What! How?"
"It's a secret."

Do this. DO THIS!!!

expirement10K14
2008-08-08, 04:06 PM
Play pun-pun? Epic feats through Dragonwraught?

Just do something UBER cheesy (summon pazuzu), then say that yours is legal, and he can't see your sheet.

Treguard
2008-08-08, 04:07 PM
Any update on the situation there, number 6?

Number 6
2008-08-08, 07:10 PM
That's a good idea, to appeal to his ego, and that's exactly what I did. But I think that he doesn't want to tell because he's afraid that then some of us will make a character like his and be as strong as his.

The game is Shadowrun 4e. Keep in mind that these are new characters and we've only earned 10 karma so far. In HTH unarmed combat, he was dishing out 10 + number of hits damage every round. From the number of dice he was rolling, he has at least 5 Reaction and 5 Body too. He was getting 3-5 successes every round, so he was either rolling fantastic or had 12 dice in Unarmed Combat. He also got 3-5 successes on defense every time I tried to hit him.

It's possible for a troll to have up to a 15 strength with cyber extras, but the damage for HTH combat is Str/2, which is 7. He has a cyber arm. Perhaps a cyber hand does STr in damage, but the maxiumum allowed Str for a cyber arm is 7. He didn't state that he had popped out cyber weapons or was burning edge.




"It's a secret" is bull and suggests an immaturity about this player that makes most normal options difficult. You could try couching it in terms of "I can't figure out how you'd do it, so I'd like to see it explained in case I'm misunderstanding some rule".

Or, describe everything you know about the character here and I'm sure the boards have the wherewithal to reverse-engineer most legal builds.

Number 6
2008-08-08, 07:13 PM
It wasn't a fight to the death, but it was serious enough to send my character to the hospital and I missed the run that night.


Unless he's playing Xellos (totally obscure reference yay!), ask the GM. Politely.

Now I, personally, don't like other PCs picking serious, hitting fights with mine (catfights, however...). If it were me, I'd talk to the GM about that as well, but that's a matter of personal preference.

Number 6
2008-08-08, 07:15 PM
If I screw him over, he'll come back for revenge with an even stronger character.


If the DM refuses to fix it (which he should) there's two options:

1) Leave the gaming group.

OR (if you're up for a challenge)

2) Engineer a way to screw him in game. As in: "Oops! I left you in the room with a sleeping red dragon, who's awake now! And I locked the door! Fancy that..."

Number 6
2008-08-08, 07:20 PM
Okay number 6 (are you a cylon?)

No, Number Six was the hero of an old BBC Sci-Fi show called The Prisoner.

Number 6
2008-08-08, 07:23 PM
Was that the one where Timmy Jackson was running a module at a convention. BTW, Timmy Jackson is based on Gary Gygax's younger brother. GG would sometimes send bro to sub for him at a convention but still keep the fee because a Gygax had showed up.


Knights of the Dinner table had a scenario like this. They were playing a 'module' where they kept getting hit with all sorts of damage and effects that just shouldn't be possible. Whenever they asked the guy running the module what was happening, he'd just ignore them.

Finally they figured out that they were getting bent over because they were playing by the rules and the other guy wasn't. So they stopped playing by the rules as well.

- Saph

comicshorse
2008-08-08, 07:28 PM
If he's a H-to-H specialist he could be a Physical Adept

ericgrau
2008-08-08, 07:45 PM
+1 talk to the DM. It's up to the DM to double check player sheets. From there you either get things fixed, or convince the DM and bad player as much as you can and keep playing anyway, or it's not worth playing anymore and you leave.

Other solutions are fun but they don't solve the problem.

[Enters your braaaaains]

It sounds like the player is trying to prove himself with a competitive mentality. It is dumb, not fun, and ruins the game, but he has a need to be somehow better than others to feel better about himself. He feels inadequete otherwise. I hear such people respond best when you laud the positive things they do and simply ignore the negative - rather than bashing them and making them feel even worse than they already secretly do, which just makes them lash back even harder than before. But I dunno, that's just what I heard about such people.

The DM sounds like she doesn't want to be confrontational, especially to a friend, and neither do you. After all it stirs up conflict and isn't fun. But both of you need to consider what will be the most fun in the long term. Unless it's a trivial problem that you can ignore forever and still have fun, then you all need to talk about it.

[/Enters your braaaaains]

Tequila Sunrise
2008-08-08, 07:53 PM
This guy is obviously ticking you off, so you really should DO something about the situation if for no other purpose than to preserve your own fun and sanity. If he wasn't ticking you off you wouldn't be posting here and there'd be no reason for you to investigate his possible cheating because you'd be having fun regardless. But you're plainly not. I suggest the following:

1. Force some accountability on this clown. Whether or not he's actually cheating or min/maxing some munchkin character is really irrelevant. It's really about him picking a fight with your character just to demonstrate his supremacy, which is wrong in a cooperative game. So directly confront this guy about his moronic behavior, talk the GM about him, or even better both.
2. You need to make it clear to this guy and/or the GM that if the douche behavior continues, you won't play. And if the douche behavior continues, you have to actually follow through on your word and LEAVE the group. Because if you don't, you're sending everyone the message that they can do whatever they want regardless of others' attitudes and opinions and never have to fear consequences.

TS

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-08, 08:33 PM
That's a good idea, to appeal to his ego, and that's exactly what I did. But I think that he doesn't want to tell because he's afraid that then some of us will make a character like his and be as strong as his.

The game is Shadowrun 4e. Keep in mind that these are new characters and we've only earned 10 karma so far. In HTH unarmed combat, he was dishing out 10 + number of hits damage every round. From the number of dice he was rolling, he has at least 5 Reaction and 5 Body too. He was getting 3-5 successes every round, so he was either rolling fantastic or had 12 dice in Unarmed Combat. He also got 3-5 successes on defense every time I tried to hit him.

It's possible for a troll to have up to a 15 strength with cyber extras, but the damage for HTH combat is Str/2, which is 7. He has a cyber arm. Perhaps a cyber hand does STr in damage, but the maxiumum allowed Str for a cyber arm is 7. He didn't state that he had popped out cyber weapons or was burning edge.

Setting aside the player being a jerk, well ... I was going to suggest that he's probably a physical adept actually, as with just a basic maxed Strength of 10 on a troll, using Critical Strike +6 for an unarmed Damage Value of 11 and Improved Ability (Unarmed) +6 for 12 Unarmed dice, plus anything he uses from his dice pool, he'd still have points left over for other physical adept abilities and already be able to work you over in unarmed combat easily, especially with the natural troll reach advantage.

But ... he has a cyberarm? As a troll? Why??

Trolls are stronger than cyberarms can start out being!

Betcha he's doing the arm wrong.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-08, 08:36 PM
The problem here is that, cheating or not, this guy is completely immature. People like this give bad name to powergamers, and I cannot allow that. Talk with him and the GM together, and if that doesn't help, blow his character up with explosives when he's asleep.

And shove a d4 up his nose.

turkishproverb
2008-08-08, 08:41 PM
Knights of the Dinner table had a scenario like this. They were playing a 'module' where they kept getting hit with all sorts of damage and effects that just shouldn't be possible. Whenever they asked the guy running the module what was happening, he'd just ignore them.

Finally they figured out that they were getting bent over because they were playing by the rules and the other guy wasn't. So they stopped playing by the rules as well.

- Saph

Wasn't it Gary Jackson's son, Timmy Jackson, running that game?

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-08, 08:45 PM
Or if he's picking on your character ICly, you could always deal with him using your specialty, which means not going toe-to-toe in unarmed combat with a troll (although I still think he's doing the arm wrong):

If you're a decker, do something nasty to his bank accounts or his identity.

If you're a rigger, do something nasty with drones, or just run over him.

If you're a gunslinger, introduce him to the 21st century by reminding him why people did away with swords and fists in favor of guns.

Etc. :smallwink:

But really, I'd press the issue on the arm. RAW, it should start with less strength than a base troll can start with. I think it would be hilarious to expose the mistake and stick him with a gimped character.

Blackdrop
2008-08-08, 08:54 PM
Knights of the Dinner table had a scenario like this. They were playing a 'module' where they kept getting hit with all sorts of damage and effects that just shouldn't be possible. Whenever they asked the guy running the module what was happening, he'd just ignore them.

Finally they figured out that they were getting bent over because they were playing by the rules and the other guy wasn't. So they stopped playing by the rules as well.

- Saph

Poor, poor Timmy. I love how the nights sent him the crying from the table, and the subsequent chaos that ensued when the prize was revealed. Ah, good times. Good times.

*cough*

Back to the topic on hand. I agree with FMarthurs suggestion.

Krrth
2008-08-08, 08:59 PM
Or if he's picking on your character ICly, you could always deal with him using your specialty, which means not going toe-to-toe in unarmed combat with a troll (although I still think he's doing the arm wrong):

If you're a decker, do something nasty to his bank accounts or his identity.

If you're a rigger, do something nasty with drones, or just run over him.

If you're a gunslinger, introduce him to the 21st century by reminding him why people did away with swords and fists in favor of guns.

Etc. :smallwink:

But really, I'd press the issue on the arm. RAW, it should start with less strength than a base troll can start with. I think it would be hilarious to expose the mistake and stick him with a gimped character.
I agree with this. His character attacked a teammate, and the team lost resources during a run? That's the sort of thing that gets runners killed.

Jerthanis
2008-08-08, 11:31 PM
T
The game is Shadowrun 4e. Keep in mind that these are new characters and we've only earned 10 karma so far. In HTH unarmed combat, he was dishing out 10 + number of hits damage every round. From the number of dice he was rolling, he has at least 5 Reaction and 5 Body too. He was getting 3-5 successes every round, so he was either rolling fantastic or had 12 dice in Unarmed Combat. He also got 3-5 successes on defense every time I tried to hit him.

It's possible for a troll to have up to a 15 strength with cyber extras, but the damage for HTH combat is Str/2, which is 7. He has a cyber arm. Perhaps a cyber hand does STr in damage, but the maxiumum allowed Str for a cyber arm is 7. He didn't state that he had popped out cyber weapons or was burning edge.

If he's not a physical adept, he's probably got Titanium laced bones. Those do (4+(1/2 str)) P IIRC, so if he's a Troll with 11 strength... which is 1 point above the racial cap, and thus within Bioware territory (I think halved attributes round up in 4e Shadowrun for some bizarre reason). Titanium bones also give you pretty darn good armor at the same time. Titanium Bones + the armored skin ware + 5 body will give you really respectable soak. I can't find my Shadowrun 4e book, but it seems to me he could be built legally with what info you DO know about him, but heaven help him if something that isn't a straight fight with a foe inside the reach of his fists comes up, because woe betide him then. Here's a simple example: He's being shot at by a helicopter. Here's another: Infiltration requires impersonating a cleaning crew.

He's my simple solution: Buy a Rocket Launcher.

They make everything better in Shadowrun.

Talic
2008-08-08, 11:36 PM
Simple answer: You don't.

Either he is cheating or he isn't. If he isn't, he's going to be justifiably angry, and if he is, you're going to cause some bad blood.

Either way, you're going to come across as petty. Sure, it may irritate you, but the problem that's come up? It's not your job to deal with it, it's the GM's. Let him be the bad guy, that's his job.

TeeEl
2008-08-09, 12:23 AM
Either he is cheating or he isn't. If he isn't, he's going to be justifiably angry,

No he wouldn't, because unless the OP was really over the top about it there would be no justification. If you're going to screw over your teammates for no reason, the very least you can do is show your work.

I mean, it's bad enough that the other player is treating the game as a competitive game rather than a cooperative one. But if he's going to play it as a competition, then his work needs to be above the board. Otherwise he's just being unreasonable; consider how this attitude of his would play out in other competitive games:

Player 1: "I call. Three of a kind."
Player 2: "Full house. The pot is mine!"
Player 1: "Wait, really? Let me see your cards."
Player 2: "No. It's a secret."

turkishproverb
2008-08-09, 12:25 AM
I agree with this. His character attacked a teammate, and the team lost resources during a run? That's the sort of thing that gets runners killed.

*Fondly remembers hiding an assassin to attack a teammate that screwed him over in an old cyberpunk campaign.*

(Edit: And yes, I do mean hiding. They were in a relationship, so my character got a freebie)

Talic
2008-08-09, 12:49 AM
No he wouldn't, because unless the OP was really over the top about it there would be no justification. If you're going to screw over your teammates for no reason, the very least you can do is show your work.

I mean, it's bad enough that the other player is treating the game as a competitive game rather than a cooperative one. But if he's going to play it as a competition, then his work needs to be above the board. Otherwise he's just being unreasonable; consider how this attitude of his would play out in other competitive games:

Player 1: "I call. Three of a kind."
Player 2: "Full house. The pot is mine!"
Player 1: "Wait, really? Let me see your cards."
Player 2: "No. It's a secret."


Wrong. Anytime you accuse another player of either cheating or of not knowing what he's talking about, it strikes a bad chord. The fact that he's being a jerk is irrelevant. That doesn't excuse it of you.

Bago!!!
2008-08-09, 01:20 AM
To simply let it slide is letting people walk all over you though. Striking a bad chord or not, the guy is being a jerk in a co-op game, pulling off rediculous stuff that could very well be unfair to the rest of the group, and rubbing it in other peoples faces.

I feel your pain 6. I have been in so many games with this one player who is smarter than most of us, and doesn't feel at all wrong about showing it off to everyone else, belittling us and making it tough to just play. Our current game is a 4th Ed game. I'am the Dwarf Fighter, he a Human Wizard. He has not stopped bothering me or the other group. I'am mostly his favorite target with his at will cantrips because my character just doesn't find it important. But as a player, I am just annoyed at the constant ghost sound in my ear, the constant loss of alchol in drinks, the constant orb of light spinning around my head. ITS MADDENING!

This is what happens when you let them go ahead and walk over you. The point of the game is to have everyone enjoy it, not just one guy. Tell the DM your problem and tell him about how the other player's additude is so bothersome. If the player doesn't change or what not, quit the game. Its not worth to play the game with such a jerk.

TeeEl
2008-08-09, 01:30 AM
Wrong. Anytime you accuse another player of either cheating or of not knowing what he's talking about, it strikes a bad chord. The fact that he's being a jerk is irrelevant. That doesn't excuse it of you.

What's there to excuse? :smallconfused: Clearly, between the two players here, one of them is mistaken. It is a trivial matter to determine which one is incorrect. Why is this simple solution taboo?

Talic
2008-08-09, 01:34 AM
What's there to excuse? :smallconfused: Clearly, between the two players here, one of them is mistaken. It is a trivial matter to determine which one is incorrect. Why is this simple solution taboo?

Because raising the question is, as the title of the thread so clearly illustrates, accusing someone of cheating.

Moreover, it's doing so by someone who has no right to be doing verification work. Again, that's the GM's job. When 1 player tries to "armchair validate" another character's sheet, he's stepping on the GM's toes. ESPECIALLY when the other player doesn't ask for that help.

In other words, it's one player going where he has no right to go, making accusations that are offensive, and in general, being a bull in a china shop. It's bad form.

The issue should be addressed, I agree. By the GM. After all, I think I read somewhere that he's the one moderating, and stuff.

TeeEl
2008-08-09, 01:59 AM
I'm not following your logic. If the player asks the GM about it then they are not only suggesting GM is not doing their job since they didn't catch it in the first place, they're still tacitly accusing the player in question of incompetence or cheating, just doing it behind their back.

I still don't see what the big deal is. Suppose you're in the other player's shoes. If someone suggests that you're not playing by the rules when you know full well that you are, they have made an honest mistake which you can easily set them straight on. Why take offense? Point out their error and move on. If the GM needs to adjudicate an ambiguity that arises between your interpretation and theirs, that's not a problem either, but I fail to see how an open dialogue between players is a bad thing here.

Blanks
2008-08-09, 02:34 AM
Don't forget people that half of the problem is that the DM is really good friends with the annoying player.

But if I was in that situation, I would require to see the sheet. He isn't the DM - he doesn't get to keep it a secret. Otherwise go with the suggestion of developing "weird" defences of your own.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-09, 03:18 AM
Don't forget people that half of the problem is that the DM is really good friends with the annoying player.

But if I was in that situation, I would require to see the sheet. He isn't the DM - he doesn't get to keep it a secret. Otherwise go with the suggestion of developing "weird" defences of your own.

That kind of thinking is a trap. What happens if the other player, jerk though he may be, actually is playing what he has legitimately? If you then cheat because you think he is, and you're exposed as such, and then it's revealed that he wasn't, how do you end up looking?

Stick to the high ground ... but that doesn't mean you have to sit there and take it or that you have to keep quiet about your misgivings. If this is making you unhappy and uncomfortable, you should be upfront about it, and if that alone isn't enough to make them listen to you, maybe it's better to quit the group. What's the point if you're not even enjoying yourself?

Talic
2008-08-09, 03:35 AM
I'm not following your logic. If the player asks the GM about it then they are not only suggesting GM is not doing their job since they didn't catch it in the first place, they're still tacitly accusing the player in question of incompetence or cheating, just doing it behind their back.

I still don't see what the big deal is. Suppose you're in the other player's shoes. If someone suggests that you're not playing by the rules when you know full well that you are, they have made an honest mistake which you can easily set them straight on. Why take offense? Point out their error and move on. If the GM needs to adjudicate an ambiguity that arises between your interpretation and theirs, that's not a problem either, but I fail to see how an open dialogue between players is a bad thing here.

Wrong again. The DM has a responsibility to create a story, run a game, adjudicate effects, rule on issues, verify character sheets, discuss issues and concepts with other players, etc. He wears many hats. Asking him to verify a sheet implies that he may have missed something on the many verifications, creations, and rulings he's done. Not that big an insult.

To suggest (as the title of the thread says) that a player is actively cheating is out and out rude, unless there is irrevocable proof.

To suggest that a player, who has the job of: make a character, and play that character, doesn't know the basic for the only responsibility he has? That's not missing something out of a heavy workload. That's borderline incompetence.

When a player comes up to me and asks me, as a DM, to verify something, I understand that it's an attempt to ease his stress about something that doesn't seem possible. I have no problem doing that.

When, as a player, someone challenges something that I've done... Well, let's just say that every player I've known that's built a grappler in D&D has researched the grappling rules. Every player that's built a tripper has researched tripping rules. When you levy this kind of accusation, it generally divides gaming groups, rather than brings them together.

If a player wants to keep his sheet secret from other players, he is under no obligation to show it. The GM has the right to assess sheets. Thus, if you have a dispute that needs to be mediated, doesn't it make sense to use the game's mediator? After all, that's what he's there for, right?

only1doug
2008-08-09, 04:05 AM
I'd have to agree with Talic, trying to prove someone is cheating isn't something another player should do.

Its unfortunate that he is the GM's friend but you still need to let the GM handle it.

you have 2 choices of ways to proceed:

1. Speak to the GM: privately tell the GM that this player is causing friction between players, please do something about him lording it over us.

2. Party revolt: The Character is picking fights in party? the rest of the party can refuse to Run with him, tell him this from prepared positions so if he gets angry and starts a fight it just gets him dead. to take this route have your character chat individually to other characters and agree a strategy to get rid of the (dangerous to own party) runner.


Doug

Blanks
2008-08-09, 04:14 AM
That kind of thinking is a trap. What happens if the other player, jerk though he may be, actually is playing what he has legitimately? If you then cheat because you think he is, and you're exposed as such, and then it's revealed that he wasn't, how do you end up looking?
The best solution would be to simply say: " stop monkeying around", but thats unlikely to work.

The point is that I want to look like someone who won't play with hidden sheets in a game with someone so confrontational.
If I say "I turn your attack back against yourself, doing a trillion damage and turning you into a newt", im not cheating or being dishonest. It is very clear that im just pointing out the flaws inherent in having hidden sheets.

Talic
2008-08-09, 04:31 AM
There isn't a flaw in having hidden sheets, providing there is a moderator who is doing what the rulebooks tell him to do.

Having a player's sheet off-limits to other players, while a bit annoying at times, is perfectly legitimate. The GM can see it, and, if needed, make rulings on the issues.

Let me restress this: It is not the job of players at the table to verify the legality of actions. That is the GM's role. The players have one job. To play their character. It's perfectly ok to question a ruling, to the GM, who then rules on that ruling. It's perfectly ok to cite a source for that dispute(assuming, of course, that you're not bogging down the game inordinately by doing so). It's not ok to do this. Final rulings always go to a GM. That's it. The GM shouldn't tell you how to play your character. You shouldn't tell him how to make his rulings. It's that simple.

Saph
2008-08-09, 04:36 AM
Was that the one where Timmy Jackson was running a module at a convention. BTW, Timmy Jackson is based on Gary Gygax's younger brother. GG would sometimes send bro to sub for him at a convention but still keep the fee because a Gygax had showed up.

Yep, it's that one. Great story. :)

The lesson is that if you play by the rules against someone who doesn't play by the rules, you should expect to lose. You have to try something different - either going around him or doing the same thing back.

In this case it depends on the GM. If the GM's running a double standard ("This guy's special because he has the super-secret LeetNess upgrade from the LolHax Corp which adds +5 to his Cooler-Than-You Attribute") there's not much you can do. On the other hand, if the GM's at least making an appearance of keeping it fair, you should be able to get away with the same thing, or at least get the other guy to tone it back.

- Saph

ericgrau
2008-08-09, 09:59 AM
You can't blanketly call it wrong to accuse someone of cheating. It is often necessary and the only way to resolve the problem and prevent problems. It is far better than the alternative.

In a mature group you should never be afraid to say such things, assuming the group is cooperative instead of always putting down eachother. And while you gotta expect/prepare for partial immaturity when you try to fix the cheating, completely 100% immature groups are petty and not the kind of people you need to make happy. If you're really in a group where you can't accuse someone of cheating, even politely, no matter what, just leave. Nothing good can come out of such immature behavior. But 90% of the time even horrible jerks aren't 100% jerks and you can at least try to fix things. I'm not saying it'll work 90% of the time or even half the time, but it's worth a shot 90% of the time.

TeeEl
2008-08-09, 12:29 PM
When, as a player, someone challenges something that I've done...

...then you must be quite confident that they are wrong in their assumptions. Why do you find the idea that other people sometimes make mistakes so offensive?

kaptainkrutch
2008-08-09, 12:53 PM
What race/class is this guy playing?

Regarding unarmed strikes in general, it's difficult to cheese out lots of unarmed damage per hit, even for a Monk. The Monk's base unarmed strike caps out at 2d10 (average 11, max 20) at level 20. If the Monk is Strength-focused, if he has power attack, if the DM allows him to use a two-handed unarmed strike as though it were a two-handed weapon, if he has access to Greater Mighty Wallop, and if he has Improved Natural Attack... then yes, you could get a pretty large amount of unarmed damage. But that's a whole lot of ifs strung together, and at the end of it all, you're still playing a Monk.

PHB II has a feat that lets your unarmed strikes deal piercing, slashing or bludgeoning damage. You can take the duelist prestige class and get up to +2d6 piercing damage and yet again in the PHB II is a feat that lets your unarmed strikes get bonus fire damage.

(edit: swift action to switch damage types, swift action and daily stunning fist use for the fire)

Starsinger
2008-08-09, 01:01 PM
PHB II has a feat that lets your unarmed strikes deal piercing, slashing or bludgeoning damage. You can take the duelist prestige class and get up to +2d6 piercing damage and yet again in the PHB II is a feat that lets your unarmed strikes get bonus fire damage.

(edit: swift action to switch damage types, swift action and daily stunning fist use for the fire)

Which would be fantastically useful, but I'm pretty sure the OP said they were playing Shadowrun.

Doomsy
2008-08-09, 02:32 PM
It is Shadowrun. Why are you fighting hand to hand?

Next time he gets uppity have the rigger and decker hit him with a truck and then hack the Lone Star records to say he stole it as well. Playing by the mechanical rules is great. But in SR it pays to think outside of them as well. You could also probably just pay another member of the team to jump him next time this happens.

Or challenge him to a rematch and have your friend the sniper/AC wielding neighborhood psychopath/Dwarf mad bomber with the ability to make a manhole cover into a lethal and hilarious trip mine give him the surprise of a life time. He might not be playing fair as a player. You have to get into the proper mindset and think about what your character would do to someone who is getting into their face when you have survived by basically being a mercenary runner.

Don't play his game and into his strengths. He thinks he is a solo badass. Teach him about teamwork. If he is as big as a braggart as you say he is the other players might also want to take him down a notch just for the hilarity factor.

xelliea
2008-08-09, 02:37 PM
ask your fellow player ?:smallconfused:

Inhuman Bot
2008-08-09, 02:52 PM
I belive the best response you could do is:

Start by saying: I have a feeling your misunderstanding something. Would you kindly allow the GM to look over you sheet again, or at least tell me how this works? It's making the game less fun for me, and I just want to clear this little issue up.

If he's playing fair, eh, he's a jerk but a rules abiding jerk.

If he's cheating he will refuse (almost 100% rather then a lower chance if he's playing by the rules) to let this happen. If he says "It's a secret" then just respond how it's lessining your fun, and it won't hurt him. If he's coninutally hostile, he's asuradly cheating, and go to your GM.

I know how the playing favourites thing feels, in the oppistie. My group wanted one person to DM a 3.5 adventure, so fine I thought, no problem. The DM Hates me, it turns out. Unlike everyone else, if I do something like come up with a solution of sneaking by they just "happen" to beat my natural 20. Always.

Most of all: Don't lose your temper. In this sort of situation, it can be easy to forget, but you need to be calm, or else things get alot worse alot quicker.

Talic
2008-08-09, 05:42 PM
...then you must be quite confident that they are wrong in their assumptions. Why do you find the idea that other people sometimes make mistakes so offensive?

I don't. What I would find offensive is someone else with incomplete information assuming I'm cheating or that I don't know what I'm talking about, when I researched my character and do have complete information concerning the character.

After all, when a player has no access to the specific mechanic used, and it's possible that it's legal (someone on this very thread has given a plausible explanation), then it's another player whining, complaining, and making accusations that essentially boil down to, "I don't like what you're doing, so you must be either cheating or just plain wrong."

Again, no matter how you want to slice it.... It is the job of the player to play. It is the job of the GM to run a world and verify legality of everything going on. If you don't want the GM telling you how to play your character, don't tell him/her how to do those verifications.

TeeEl
2008-08-09, 05:53 PM
It is the job of the GM to run a world and verify legality of everything going on. If you don't want the GM telling you how to play your character, don't tell him/her how to do those verifications.

Huh? We're talking about a player going "Hold on, I don't see how that's possible." How is that undermining the GM's job?

Jade_Tarem
2008-08-09, 06:11 PM
Unless he's playing Xellos (totally obscure reference yay!), ask the GM. Politely.

Slayers. And Xellos never went around beating people up just to prove how tough he was. That was more Lina's thing.

Also, this player needs to be shown, somehow, that playing a stronger character doesn't mean you're playing better. Also, if he wants to keep secrets about his character while beating up on fellow party members, he needs to get over it. In most groups, killing PCs and not telling anyone how is considered cheating until it's proven that it's not. On the off chance that he's actually correct (I put the odds of him being completely honest/right about his character at just under those of Peter Pan giving the 2009 State of the Union Address), then he should be barred from playing that character specifically and any character resembling it ever again, because he can't act like a big boy or let the others have any fun while he's playing one.

sikyon
2008-08-09, 11:17 PM
Something I'm not sure has been brought up, but you can do it IC.

Just have your character be incredilous about how he is this strong/damaging, and become paranoid. Refuse to work with him because he must be being sponsored by your enemy or be an alien or something similarly parinoid. Bring it to a head when you try to disect him to find out, citing group saftey concerns over keeping power and knoweldge thereof from each other.

Talic
2008-08-09, 11:46 PM
Huh? We're talking about a player going "Hold on, I don't see how that's possible." How is that undermining the GM's job?

And, in that instance, the best answer for someone playing with a hidden sheet is, "It is."

Demanding that the player account for how he did something, the abilities and mechanics used, and the method he gained them? That's verifying the player's work. And that's not your bloody job. Again, let the GM run the game and verify the legality of actions. If he needs your expert opinion on incomplete information, or needs your input, I'm just his perfectly functioning mouth can ask for that assistance. Until it does, you can safely assume that he's handling his tasks, and you can resume yours.

A player's entire existence in a game begins and ends with his character sheet. If it's not on that sheet, and isn't in the player's handbook or equivalent, it is outside his authority. When a player goes where he has no business being, the most polite answer I can think of to respond to that is, "you deal with your character, and I'll deal with mine." The most sensible is, "mind your dang business, and get out of mine."

Akisa
2008-08-09, 11:58 PM
And, in that instance, the best answer for someone playing with a hidden sheet is, "It is."

Demanding that the player account for how he did something, the abilities and mechanics used, and the method he gained them? That's verifying the player's work. And that's not your bloody job. Again, let the GM run the game and verify the legality of actions. If he needs your expert opinion on incomplete information, or needs your input, I'm just his perfectly functioning mouth can ask for that assistance. Until it does, you can safely assume that he's handling his tasks, and you can resume yours.

A player's entire existence in a game begins and ends with his character sheet. If it's not on that sheet, and isn't in the player's handbook or equivalent, it is outside his authority. When a player goes where he has no business being, the most polite answer I can think of to respond to that is, "you deal with your character, and I'll deal with mine." The most sensible is, "mind your dang business, and get out of mine."

by the same token then the GM should be enforcing legal characters. If not the players have the right to rebel and/or remove the player and/or gm from the group.

NPCMook
2008-08-10, 12:08 AM
Words to live by as a Shadowrunner, "Trust No One." So obviously this guy is annoying the entire team both in and out of character, I believe showing him how much this is appreciated in character. If he seems as egotistical as you say he is, he will most likely burn some Edge to stay alive, thus reducing his total Edge value by 1... each time you bring him down.

Roleplaying games are meant as a Team game, and Shadowrun really stresses the part of team work, if he doesn't wish to be on the team, then the team should clean up any loose ends they might have. Shadowrun wasn't meant to be all flowers and lollipops, its the year 2070, its a dog eat dog world now, literally. If he doesn't want to run with the pack, then have the pack run him over. As someone early suggested, "Oops, did I leave you alone in the room with the Red Dragon?"

So yes, let him have his "secret" character... face down in the gutter. After all, its a Team game, and he should learn that, even if it requires a few new characters

Talic
2008-08-10, 12:13 AM
by the same token then the GM should be enforcing legal characters. If not the players have the right to rebel and/or remove the player and/or gm from the group.

Players always have the right to vote with their feet, true. However, if the rules are being followed, and the character is legal, then what is the GM doing wrong? How much of it is the GM, and how much is it one player's pedantic need to know how, and not just that it is legal?

It's already been shown that titanium laced bones are a feasible legal answer to explain what happened. What happened is within the bounds of legal play.

What remains is dealing with a jerk player. And that is entirely seperate from the mechanics of the character. Engineering the player's death is entirely in keeping with the Shadowrun setting, and seems to be a sensible solution in this instance.

Akisa
2008-08-10, 12:24 AM
hmm maybe I should rephrase it... How about characters that are both legal and works together with the party. For example in 3.5 pun pun is "legal character", but should he be played in a normal game? No, pun pun should never see the light of day.

Talic
2008-08-10, 12:35 AM
That is the ideal, but now you're trying to make the GM get the player to step in line. Perfectly ok, if the player's not.

A better solution in this case may be more of an intervention. Several players sitting down with the player and discussing their problems with what the player is doing... Not with the mechanics for it, but with how those actions are dividing the party. Now that, that's a team effort to get a player back on track. Not starting off by attacking how he did it, but WHY. How just encourages him to do the same thing with a different mechanic, for the same reason.

Party balance issues are best addressed by more than one player, and usually the DM as well.

On a side note, I dislike seeing any unsavory action being compared to pun-pun. Again, the fault is not with the mechanics here. The fault is with the player mindset.

Jade_Tarem
2008-08-10, 12:37 AM
Something I'm not sure has been brought up, but you can do it IC.

Just have your character be incredilous about how he is this strong/damaging, and become paranoid. Refuse to work with him because he must be being sponsored by your enemy or be an alien or something similarly parinoid. Bring it to a head when you try to disect him to find out, citing group saftey concerns over keeping power and knoweldge thereof from each other.

Or you could just make sure he dies. There are a number of ways to kill players that are more powerful than you just by maneuvering them into situations where they can't hope to survive. If the GM deus ex machinas him out, then you have a whole other problem.

Oh, and on a side note that has nothing to do with the post I quoted, the GM shouldn't have to hold hands with the players to make sure that they behave, double check their math, and have all their stats correct. I'm running a campaign, not a babysitting service. If the other players think something is up, they have a right to get pissed - even if the character is 100% legal. One dude does not get veto power on who gets to have fun or what the party does in the campaign no matter how badass he is, which is part of the reason why I suppor the plan of OP's character killing the problem character through opportunistic treachery. I recommend the classic wait-till-he's-weak-then-take-your-best-shot plan.

The Extinguisher
2008-08-10, 01:07 AM
And, in that instance, the best answer for someone playing with a hidden sheet is, "It is."

Demanding that the player account for how he did something, the abilities and mechanics used, and the method he gained them? That's verifying the player's work. And that's not your bloody job. Again, let the GM run the game and verify the legality of actions. If he needs your expert opinion on incomplete information, or needs your input, I'm just his perfectly functioning mouth can ask for that assistance. Until it does, you can safely assume that he's handling his tasks, and you can resume yours.

A player's entire existence in a game begins and ends with his character sheet. If it's not on that sheet, and isn't in the player's handbook or equivalent, it is outside his authority. When a player goes where he has no business being, the most polite answer I can think of to respond to that is, "you deal with your character, and I'll deal with mine." The most sensible is, "mind your dang business, and get out of mine."

I don't know what kind of groups you play with, but I can safely assume that I would never want to play with you.

If I, as a player or a DM, were to do something that someone in the group didn't think was right, I'd explain to them how it works, instead of getting them paranoid and mad at me. That's just moronic. I've been in enough stupid arguements over rules to know that you don't dismiss a concern. You work out why one person was wrong.

Sure, it's nice to have one person do all that, but these are group games. Every group should work together. Seperating players into jobs is meaningless and just causes problems. And trust me, everyone makes mistakes. As a DM, I've overlooked something, and if no one said anything about it, I would have let it continue. It's called co-operation. It works.

Talic
2008-08-10, 01:33 AM
I don't know what kind of groups you play with, but I can safely assume that I would never want to play with you.

If I, as a player or a DM, were to do something that someone in the group didn't think was right, I'd explain to them how it works, instead of getting them paranoid and mad at me. That's just moronic. I've been in enough stupid arguements over rules to know that you don't dismiss a concern. You work out why one person was wrong.

Sure, it's nice to have one person do all that, but these are group games. Every group should work together. Seperating players into jobs is meaningless and just causes problems. And trust me, everyone makes mistakes. As a DM, I've overlooked something, and if no one said anything about it, I would have let it continue. It's called co-operation. It works.


Really? So, if a player really wants to know exactly how the BBEG got the 75 damage charge attack, it's the DM's responsibility to tell him?

If a player wants to know exactly how another player blew open the front gate of the enemy compound, everyone's under the obligation to satisfy his rampant curiousity?

Let me tell you how I play, since you're so sure you'd hate to run with me. I believe that what you DON'T know is as important as what you do. It is the unknown that has always been man's greatest fear, and playing on uncertainty, that is one of the very best ways to increase dramatic tension.

Handholding one player who insists on making sure everyone's doing everything right? Not so much. That falls under game slowdown, 2 hour combats, and the like. I keep my action moving, I never let the players know more than their rolls and their checks entitle them to... Until after the campaign, or after the foe is vanquished. At that point, I'm happy to explain any mechanics. But before then? No, it spoils the tension of the story.

turkishproverb
2008-08-10, 02:00 AM
Really? So, if a player really wants to know exactly how the BBEG got the 75 damage charge attack, it's the DM's responsibility to tell him?

Fallacy. Things work differently for the DM. This has to do with another player. Things work differently.

Number 6
2008-08-10, 02:14 AM
If he's a H-to-H specialist he could be a Physical Adept

You're probably right. He says he has wired reflexes and cyberware, which reduce the power of magical types, but I bet that he'd fake it just to cover up that he's an adept.

Number 6
2008-08-10, 02:21 AM
*Fondly remembers hiding an assassin to attack a teammate that screwed him over in an old cyberpunk campaign.*

(Edit: And yes, I do mean hiding. They were in a relationship, so my character got a freebie)

The player screwed you over, then slept with your character? What, was he Stupid!?

vicente408
2008-08-10, 02:23 AM
The player screwed you over, then slept with your character? What, was he Stupid!?

I think the player who screwed him over was the assassin's target.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-10, 02:27 AM
You're probably right. He says he has wired reflexes and cyberware, which reduce the power of magical types, but I bet that he'd fake it just to cover up that he's an adept.

Well, yes ... if it's a ruse, then that would make a lot of sense. You can do things for hand-to-hand with physical adepts that street samurai only dream about.

Then again, you can do it with guns, too. Improved Ability (your firearm type of choice) +6? Sure.

turkishproverb
2008-08-10, 02:28 AM
I think the player who screwed him over was the assassin's target.

this is the closer of the two guesses.

vicente408
2008-08-10, 02:29 AM
If he's trying to cover it up, why brag and beat up another character? Why not leave it as a surprise for when fighting someone else?

Talic
2008-08-10, 02:30 AM
Fallacy. Things work differently for the DM. This has to do with another player. Things work differently.

No different. Player 1 is no more entitled to look at Player 2's notes than the DM's.

If player 2 says that there are aspects of his character that need to remain secret, and that they touch on combat abilities, so they can't be disclosed, that is perfectly valid.

So now, we have 5 individuals at a table one Saturday night.

The first, well, he wants to keep parts of his character secret, and is entitled to.

The second, a bit jilted over the first's superiority in unarmed combat, wants to know how. He can't see how it's done, so assumes that the first is probably wrong or cheating, and feels like he is entitled to an explanation of how. He's not entitled however, to the information he wants, by the rules of the game.

The third and fourth couldn't care less. Or maybe they do. However, they're also not entitled to the information on the first's sheet.

The fifth, well, he's kinda a go between for everyone. He moderates, and has the final ruling on every game-related action at the table. He has access to all information, player and story alike.

Based on the above descriptions, which two people are in the best position to know about the first's sheet? Or to make an educated decision about it?

(P.S. If you'll notice, my second example was a player to player one, to cover that as well. So no fallacy for you, thank you very much.)

Number 6
2008-08-10, 02:30 AM
It's already been shown that titanium laced bones are a feasible legal answer to explain what happened. What happened is within the bounds of legal play.


Actually, it's not legal, because he's a new character, new characters can't buy anything with a availability rating higher than 8F when creating the character, and Titaniam lacing is 16F. I think that physical adept with a fake bionic arm to throw us off is the answer.

turkishproverb
2008-08-10, 02:30 AM
I think the player who screwed him over was the assassin's target.

this is the closer of the two guesses. I'd been in a relationship with an NPC assasin for a while and convinced them to take out the other PC that caused me trouble. :)

vicente408
2008-08-10, 02:36 AM
No different. Player 1 is no more entitled to look at Player 2's notes than the DM's.

If player 2 says that there are aspects of his character that need to remain secret, and that they touch on combat abilities, so they can't be disclosed, that is perfectly valid.

So now, we have 5 individuals at a table one Saturday night.

The first, well, he wants to keep parts of his character secret, and is entitled to.

The second, a bit jilted over the first's superiority in unarmed combat, wants to know how. He can't see how it's done, so assumes that the first is probably wrong or cheating, and feels like he is entitled to an explanation of how. He's not entitled however, to the information he wants, by the rules of the game.

The third and fourth couldn't care less. Or maybe they do. However, they're also not entitled to the information on the first's sheet.

The fifth, well, he's kinda a go between for everyone. He moderates, and has the final ruling on every game-related action at the table. He has access to all information, player and story alike.

Based on the above descriptions, which two people are in the best position to know about the first's sheet? Or to make an educated decision about it?

(P.S. If you'll notice, my second example was a player to player one, to cover that as well. So no fallacy for you, thank you very much.)

Even if the player wants to keep his character sheet hidden from the other players (a perfectly reasonable request), if another player suspects him of cheating, or misunderstanding a rule, the DM can still check his sheet to make sure it is legal and that the player is interpreting the rules correctly. No, the rules of the game don't require it, but that's not the issue. The DM isn't forced to do so, but it is certainly the most reasonable thing to do in the situation, in order to make sure everyone is having fun and enjoying the game.

The Extinguisher
2008-08-10, 02:37 AM
Really? So, if a player really wants to know exactly how the BBEG got the 75 damage charge attack, it's the DM's responsibility to tell him?

If a player wants to know exactly how another player blew open the front gate of the enemy compound, everyone's under the obligation to satisfy his rampant curiousity?

You misunterstood my point.

If someone feels that someone is not doing something right, they should get to know why it is right. That's called deceny. If there are some combat aspects that need to remain a secret, that's fine. But when it ends with the one character ruining the game for at least one person, then something is wrong.

What if that one player is cheating, and the GM is in on it. Then obviously nothing is going to change. The two will keep cheating. Asking questions never hurt anyone.

Of course, this is all generally based on a gaming table with friendly relationships between everyone. Which is what you want.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-10, 02:40 AM
No different. Player 1 is no more entitled to look at Player 2's notes than the DM's.

If player 2 says that there are aspects of his character that need to remain secret, and that they touch on combat abilities, so they can't be disclosed, that is perfectly valid.

So now, we have 5 individuals at a table one Saturday night.

The first, well, he wants to keep parts of his character secret, and is entitled to.

The second, a bit jilted over the first's superiority in unarmed combat, wants to know how. He can't see how it's done, so assumes that the first is probably wrong or cheating, and feels like he is entitled to an explanation of how. He's not entitled however, to the information he wants, by the rules of the game.

The third and fourth couldn't care less. Or maybe they do. However, they're also not entitled to the information on the first's sheet.

The fifth, well, he's kinda a go between for everyone. He moderates, and has the final ruling on every game-related action at the table. He has access to all information, player and story alike.

Based on the above descriptions, which two people are in the best position to know about the first's sheet? Or to make an educated decision about it?

(P.S. If you'll notice, my second example was a player to player one, to cover that as well. So no fallacy for you, thank you very much.)

I think it's completely reasonable for player 2 to ask the GM to check if everything is okay with player 1's character sheet. The situation here shows that the most probable reason why player 1 does not want to show his sheet is because he is cheating.

The Extinguisher
2008-08-10, 02:43 AM
Anyways, I'd say, if you aren't having fun, leave. Find a new group. Convince the people you are playing with that you like to join you.

It's the best option, in my opinion.

Talic
2008-08-10, 02:48 AM
You misunterstood my point.

If someone feels that someone is not doing something right, they should get to know why it is right. That's called deceny. If there are some combat aspects that need to remain a secret, that's fine. But when it ends with the one character ruining the game for at least one person, then something is wrong.No. The player should get to know THAT everything is correct, and is entitled to have someone in a position to check that verify it. He should not gain access to privileged information because he "feels something's wrong". That's called respect. Insisting to check it yourself is basically saying you don't trust the DM to do it. It's micromanaging, and it's a sign of a lack of respect and trust to all involved. That does not foster a good group dynamic. No matter how you slice it, it's bad form.

What if that one player is cheating, and the GM is in on it. Then obviously nothing is going to change. The two will keep cheating. Asking questions never hurt anyone.
If the DM is in collusion with a player deliberately, and is cheating, then there are bigger problems with the group dynamic. Find a new group.

Of course, this is all generally based on a gaming table with friendly relationships between everyone. Which is what you want.
No. If you have a GM cheating to make 1 player better, at the expense of others, that does NOT qualify as "friendly relations". If you have another player wanting to check the sheets of his fellow players personally, not trusting the GM to do it, it's NOT friendly relations. That's a highly dysfunctional group dynamic, and is not one based on trust.

The need to make sure you know what's going on and that it's correct at all times can run you afoul of friendly relations faster than anything. It amounts to nothing more or less than telling your fellow gamers that you don't trust them to play right, so doggone it, you'll help them out, whether they want it or not.

The Extinguisher
2008-08-10, 02:58 AM
Again, the point is not that one player not trusting the DM to do his "job" as you say, but that, that one player just wants to know what is going on.

Apply this to any other scenario, and you see the logic at fault here. Yes, the judge is there to enforce the rules, but it's always nice to know what the rules are.

Apply it to the card game analogy. If someone has a Royal Flush, but won't show you, just saying they have it isn't going to convince anyone.

There is no logical reason why someone would need to keep something combat relative a secret other that cheating. Anything IC can be mentioned OC, as long as you keep it OC.

Talic
2008-08-10, 03:21 AM
Again, the point is not that one player not trusting the DM to do his "job" as you say, but that, that one player just wants to know what is going on.

Apply this to any other scenario, and you see the logic at fault here. Yes, the judge is there to enforce the rules, but it's always nice to know what the rules are.

Apply it to the card game analogy. If someone has a Royal Flush, but won't show you, just saying they have it isn't going to convince anyone.

There is no logical reason why someone would need to keep something combat relative a secret other that cheating. Anything IC can be mentioned OC, as long as you keep it OC.

Fallacy. In the game of poker, players are required to reveal their hands. This is different than when players are NOT required to reveal their sheets.

If a player doesn't want to reveal his ability that lets him roll an extra 4 dice on combat dolls, or his item that gives him an extra 3 on defense rules, in this game, you don't have to. You have a 3rd party that handles that. The GM.

Look at the following scenario.


Bob: Ha that's another hit! 4 damage. That means I win!
Joe: You've hit me every time, and blocked every attack! Something can't be right here.
Gus: Tell you what, everyone take a 5 minute break, Bob, come over here for a second.

** Gus the GM takes Bob aside, asks him to explain the exact method for the successes, failures, and dice he rolled, and goes over it step by step. Everyone then returns to the table. **

Gus: It all checks out. Everything's legit. Moving on to the consequences of that, you're moderately injured, and won't be able to make the scheduled run tonight.

**** Now, here Joe has an option. He can accept that it's correct, or he can demand to know how and why.

If he demands to know how and why, after the GM and the player have gone over everything, and verified legality... Well, now you're either saying that you don't trust the GM's ability to make good rulings when the issue is specifically brought to his/her attention and looked at (along with the player's intentional or unintentional rule breaking), or that the GM is deliberately in collusion with another player to cheat.

Yes, in this instance, it CAN hurt, to know why. It destroys the balance of trust that every social game between friends has.

Poker is based on deception, bluffing, and tactics. But in the end, you have to reveal everything. That's the rules.

RPG's don't have that rule. They have a third party to check for you, and he's called the GM. To try to take that mantle yourself is not trusting him to do it, pure and simple.

Blow all the smoke you want. Make all the arguments you want. It doesn't stand up to that simple truth, and that is why your argument holds no water.

Because every single time micromanagement is used, whether justified or not, it is showing a lack of trust.

And that has no place in a gathering of friends.

EDIT: As for a logical reason? Perhaps he wanted to portray himself as an honorable warrior, when, in actuality, he's a trained assassin, with a plethora of illegal gear? Perhaps the GM decided to work that into the storyline, and wants to keep it as privileged information. That would be a very good reason to conceal the gear that's empowering this individual, to make the storyline more immersive.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-10, 03:39 AM
Well, I don't know who's going to be judged "right" at the end of the day, but I know if I were given a choice between playing in a game run Flame Master Axel's way or Talic's way, I'd choose Axel's and avoid Talic's.

If that's wrong, I'm happy with being wrong.

turkishproverb
2008-08-10, 03:50 AM
Well, I don't know who's going to be judged "right" at the end of the day, but I know if I were given a choice between playing in a game run Flame Master Axel's way or Talic's way, I'd choose Axel's and avoid Talic's.

If that's wrong, I'm happy with being wrong.

I can kind've see where talic is coming from, especially in shadowrun, with a certain amount of player mistrust and ambiguity being needed, but his all or nothing attitude is a little anti-conductive to his argument.

Talic
2008-08-10, 04:04 AM
Well, I don't know who's going to be judged "right" at the end of the day, but I know if I were given a choice between playing in a game run Flame Master Axel's way or Talic's way, I'd choose Axel's and avoid Talic's.

If that's wrong, I'm happy with being wrong.

Fair enough. Many people prefer games where everything is upfront and on the table. That's ok. Public access character sheets is a fine houserule to make, and in many of my games, I do just that. Especially when players don't know one another exceptionally well.

But, by the way most RPGs are designed to work, there are roles that must be allowed. If information is privileged, and a player doesn't like that, well, I'm sorry.

But I can tell you, that I've run many games, over many years, and I've not once had a player get up and leave the table from my GM style. Not once. I bend over backwards to find rules to allow my players to fulfill the concepts they want. I homebrew where necessary, for the really unique things, such as a Favored of <insert obscure god here> template, or somesuch. I let my players figure things out by sleuthing it out, and in the end, they have a great sense of accomplishment, and a memorable adventure.

I have people sending me e-mails over games of mine that ended 10 years ago. I don't need other people's approval. I consider myself a competent GM. Maybe not a great one, but I start from a basic premise that everyone is there to have fun, and that works best when I let them handle their characters, and I handle the details. If a specific mechanic I use is incorrect, I welcome someone's input, and make rulings. Sometimes I rule for them, sometimes I tell them that doesn't apply, and make a note to tell them why when I can. For instance, in D&D, when one player made a grappling attempt on a dominated party member, and provoked an AoO... Even though the grappler had improved grapple. The other player didn't want it revealed that he had close-quarters fighting, because he didn't want it revealed that he was a fighter, rather than the paladin he claimed to be. I honored that, and told the grappler that despite his Improved grapple, he still provokes an attack. The player then did a little legwork, and figured it out later, along with other clues. Nothing wrong there. My player pointed out what he thought was correct, I stated that it didn't apply, and he trusted that judgement. We moved on, it all got revealed in the end. Everyone knows from the get go that I try to make sure that my players get the character they want to play. Sometimes that means that others get the same, and, when those interact, sometimes abilities are trumped. You don't need to know why it happens, any more than you need to know why everything happens IRL. That it happens is sometimes enough.

Remember, just because you are entitled to the rules doesn't mean you're entitled to knowledge about the circumstances of how they interact with unknown information.

Blanks
2008-08-10, 12:00 PM
I consider myself a competent GM.
And you probably are. I have never heard one of your players complain.
But you seem to think very highly of Number 6s GM, a person you don't know at all.

All we know is that Number 6 seems to think the other player is cheating, and giving the information that the GM and the player are close friends. The only reason to mention this is because he suspects that the GM might be in on it, or at least can't function as an unbiased arbiter.

Your trust was gained through years of fair behavior, but Number 6 clearly doesn't have that kind of trust in neither his GM nor the other player. And we don't know that he should trust them!
You describe in some of your post your view of how the perfect GM should be. But Number 6 might not share your view of how to be the perfect GM, and we know for a fact that Number 6s GM isn't perfect - otherwise he never would have started the thread.






Oh, and just because something can be done legally it isn't necessarily the same as that the other player is doing it legally.

FoE
2008-08-10, 12:34 PM
I think it's completely reasonable for player 2 to ask the GM to check if everything is okay with player 1's character sheet. .... The most probable reason why player 1 does not want to show his sheet is because he is cheating.

I would agree with that, and as the GM I would ask to see that player's character sheet to check on any claims of cheating. If he refused, then he can hit the road.

Don't let the fact that the GM is good friends with this player intimidate you. My friends try that kind of bull**** all the time, and I always call them on it.

spamoo
2008-08-10, 12:38 PM
I would agree with that, and as the GM I would ask to see that player's character sheet to check on any claims of cheating. If he refused, then he can hit the road.

Don't let the fact that the GM is good friends with this player intimidate you. My friends try that kind of bull**** all the time, and I always call them on it.

Exactly. If he doesn't even allow the GM to see his sheet then an X v 1 with other players may be necessary. No single well-built character can take out the rest of the party without help.

Akisa
2008-08-10, 01:29 PM
I like to keep my c-sheet secret when I make a "Paladin" it's usually a cleric. So I know why a player would keep it a secret, however if I'm accused of cheating, saying my character is a "secret" is plain wrong. I have been on both end of accused of cheating and I always showed my c-sheet. Yes there been a few occasions were things changed but these were mostly with bad role-players. But as a role-playing game they should role-play not knowing these hidden secrets.

Triaxx
2008-08-10, 06:39 PM
There are two possible answers. One is in jest and should be taken as such. The other is the serious answer.

In Jest:

Tie him to his chair and inspect his sheet. Use the heaviest available rulebook to fend off the GM.

Serious:

Either leave and don't come back, invite the other fair players to come with you, and play among yourselves. Or invite the cheater to not come back next week.

That's all there is too it. If you aren't enjoying playing with that person, don't play with that person.

---

An alternative thought, is that the player in question is playing fair, but by opposing rules. The character may be a Janus and trying to sow dissension and distrust in the party. All things being equal otherwise, being a bad guy entitles them to unlimited funds for such things as: More powerful magic, higher level cybernetics, tactical nuclear devices, and so on.

Doomsy
2008-08-10, 08:53 PM
After reading the rest of the threat I think the player might have a legitimate reason to hide his C-sheet. If he is playing a phys-ad pretending to be a cyber'd street sam then I can see why he would not want other players seeing it. Some people have problems with not crossing IC/OOC knowledge, or it could be some kind of surprise thing he is planning.

On the other hand. If he is acting like a jerk IC he is risking having a heavily armed team of mercenaries extremely annoyed at him and should suffer the IC repercussions of such. You guys are a team. He sent one of you to the hospital in what appears to be an ego-driven brawl.

Someone might accidentally get shot in the back a few dozen times on their next run. Or 'miss' the escape vehicle. There are consequences to being mean to someone who you might need to provide covering fire, medical support, or magical help. He might need to learn this lesson. Just make sure it is completely IC.

TeeEl
2008-08-10, 09:40 PM
If he demands to know how and why, after the GM and the player have gone over everything, and verified legality... Well, now you're either saying that you don't trust the GM's ability to make good rulings when the issue is specifically brought to his/her attention and looked at (along with the player's intentional or unintentional rule breaking), or that the GM is deliberately in collusion with another player to cheat.

No he's not. No offense, but you seem awfully insecure about this whole scenario. In demanding to know how and why, even after the GM has verified legality, he is mostly saying that he himself does not understand the rules and their ramifications as well as he thought he did and is asking for help. No one (not even the GM) is under any compulsion to spell things out for him, but asking for what is essentially optimization advice does not constitute the gross violation of trust that you seem to think it does, and it's good sportsmanship to at least give some pointers.

Jade_Tarem
2008-08-10, 11:33 PM
After reading the rest of the threat I think the player might have a legitimate reason to hide his C-sheet. If he is playing a phys-ad pretending to be a cyber'd street sam then I can see why he would not want other players seeing it. Some people have problems with not crossing IC/OOC knowledge, or it could be some kind of surprise thing he is planning.

On the other hand. If he is acting like a jerk IC he is risking having a heavily armed team of mercenaries extremely annoyed at him and should suffer the IC repercussions of such. You guys are a team. He sent one of you to the hospital in what appears to be an ego-driven brawl.

Someone might accidentally get shot in the back a few dozen times on their next run. Or 'miss' the escape vehicle. There are consequences to being mean to someone who you might need to provide covering fire, medical support, or magical help. He might need to learn this lesson. Just make sure it is completely IC.

This is what I'm talking about. Remember that he (at some point) is hopefully going to have to rely on the "wronged" character here. At that point, it's shaft city! Again, if he manages to survive through some very-improbable chain of events, then you might have a GM who's showing some favoritism here...

Talic
2008-08-11, 12:06 AM
And you probably are. I have never heard one of your players complain.
But you seem to think very highly of Number 6s GM, a person you don't know at all.No, I think that anyone who allows someone else to run a game must trust him to run it, from the outset. The position of GM requires that. If you don't trust the GM to run the game, then why are you playing with him?

All we know is that Number 6 seems to think the other player is cheating, and giving the information that the GM and the player are close friends. The only reason to mention this is because he suspects that the GM might be in on it, or at least can't function as an unbiased arbiter.And if you're to the point of believing that, or letting it interfere with the game, it's time to find a new group.

Your trust was gained through years of fair behavior, but Number 6 clearly doesn't have that kind of trust in neither his GM nor the other player. And we don't know that he should trust them!No, I gained that trust almost immediately with my groups because I laid out the ground rules in advance, elaborated on any house rules in advance, and if someone used RAW that hadn't been houseruled, it worked for that encounter, at the very least. If it was then unbalancing, I added a new houserule, and allowed any character modifications required to compensate for the mid-stream change.

Any player additions to a group are done by a majority vote of the current group. Players always get their say.

I sit down prior to any campaign with each player for at least 30 minutes, to ensure that both me and they are on the same page with character background, and working them into the storyline. I also use this time to address any special requests.

Many of the players I play with, I've met once, for a couple hours, and that's it. But everyone I've played with has started, if not with trust, then with a respect for the effort and time I put into a game to make it memorable.

Now, if a DM's actions lead a player to believe that he's showing partiality, or collaborating to give a player an advantage...
Then the real question is, why is he playing with that DM?


You describe in some of your post your view of how the perfect GM should be. But Number 6 might not share your view of how to be the perfect GM, and we know for a fact that Number 6s GM isn't perfect - otherwise he never would have started the thread.Well, in any game that is ostensibly about fun, the main goal for the GM should be fostering that fun. I can DM in a variety of styles, whether I be playing with people who love a rich story, and are willing to forgive some inconsistencies for that, or people who love the number crunching technical aspects, and the optimizing. The bottom line is the same as with writing. Know your audience. That may not be perfect... But you'll rarely get rotten tomatoes for it, hmm?

Oh, and just because something can be done legally it isn't necessarily the same as that the other player is doing it legally.
True. But it is enough to need more than just the action to justify complaints of cheating.

Bottom line. If you can't trust a GM, don't play with him. If you can, TRUST the GM.


No he's not. No offense, but you seem awfully insecure about this whole scenario. In demanding to know how and why, even after the GM has verified legality, he is mostly saying that he himself does not understand the rules and their ramifications as well as he thought he did and is asking for help. No one (not even the GM) is under any compulsion to spell things out for him, but asking for what is essentially optimization advice does not constitute the gross violation of trust that you seem to think it does, and it's good sportsmanship to at least give some pointers.

And you seem to think that a player is entitled to know whatever he wants, whenever he wants, on the basis of nothing more than he doesn't understand.

That. Is. Not. True.

If he does not understand something, that is not necessarily the bad thing that you think it is. How many people play the stock market without fully understanding it? (answer:everyone who plays it) How many play chess without understanding every nuance or aspect, or every offensive gambit and opening? Is that wrong, or bad?

Is a player at the chess table obliged to tell his opponent exactly what his moves mean, and the attacks that he's set up, just because the opponent doesn't understand a french opening? No. The players know how all the pieces move, and to get interaction, and the WHY? Well, that's what makes different players different.

I'm not defensive. I'm openly attacking the view that players should be entitled to hand holding and full explanations whenever they want them.

They're not. They shouldn't be. If the situation you describe is true, then at a RPG table, there should just be 5 players, all with the exact same tasks. All should be able to equally overrule the other, and all should have the final say.

And then you have 6 year old cops and robbers, which essentially boils down to:
"Bang! I shot you!"
"Nuh uh, you missed!"
"Uh huh!"

Kompera
2008-08-11, 12:10 AM
Question for 6:

Was the GM moderating your fight, or did you two do it as a sort of a sidebar? There are things in your description ("From the number of dice he was rolling, he has at least 5 Reaction and 5 Body too. He was getting 3-5 successes every round, so he was either rolling fantastic or had 12 dice in Unarmed Combat. He also got 3-5 successes on defense every time I tried to hit him.") which make me think that the GM might not have been involved and that the other player was hiding his dice numbers and rolls from you.

If the GM was not involved, the lesson to take away is: Don't do that anymore. You lose out on your one chance to appeal to a higher power than the other player if you do this player to player.

You should have the right to hear what abilities the other player is using, unless he is passing notes to the GM each round describing them. It's been a long, long time since I've played Shadowrun, but in most games just saying "I beat him with my fist" isn't a clear enough description of what you're doing and why you deserve so many dice/bonuses/damage/whatever.

You should also have the right to see how many dice he is rolling, so that you can verify his successes. You shouldn't just have to hear him say "I got 5 successes on defense", he needs to prove this. His success rolls are not a hidden part of his character sheet. Unless the GM agrees to play witness there also.

In the final balance, if the GM is involved and willing to go through all the extra steps of note passing and dice witnessing, then you're not going to get any answers to your questions. At that point it becomes a matter of choice: Is the play, other than dealing with this one individual and a possibly biased GM (see above comments about the cost of the cyberware which would allow that level of hth combat potency), worth more to you than what you could be doing otherwise? I personally would never stay in a group with such a munchkin-like player. I don't mind character sheet secrecy or specific plot lines which involve other players to which my character is not privy, but combining braggart behavior with suspect mechanics and counter-cooperative behavior to the point where you had to sit out a play session doesn't sound like anything I'd choose to be associated with.

My advice: Talk to the GM privately. Explain your concerns in a non-confrontational manner. Describe how having been sat out due to inter-party conflict has made the game less fun to you, and sum up with a request that this sort of behavior not be tolerated in the future. If he isn't sympathetic and doesn't indicate that there will be any changes then run, don't walk, to another play group and never look back.

Jade_Tarem
2008-08-11, 01:02 AM
And you seem to think that a player is entitled to know whatever he wants, whenever he wants, on the basis of nothing more than he doesn't understand.

That. Is. Not. True.

If he does not understand something, that is not necessarily the bad thing that you think it is. How many people play the stock market without fully understanding it? (answer:everyone who plays it) How many play chess without understanding every nuance or aspect, or every offensive gambit and opening? Is that wrong, or bad?

Is a player at the chess table obliged to tell his opponent exactly what his moves mean, and the attacks that he's set up, just because the opponent doesn't understand a french opening? No. The players know how all the pieces move, and to get interaction, and the WHY? Well, that's what makes different players different.

I'm not defensive. I'm openly attacking the view that players should be entitled to hand holding and full explanations whenever they want them.

They're not. They shouldn't be. If the situation you describe is true, then at a RPG table, there should just be 5 players, all with the exact same tasks. All should be able to equally overrule the other, and all should have the final say.

And then you have 6 year old cops and robbers, which essentially boils down to:
"Bang! I shot you!"
"Nuh uh, you missed!"
"Uh huh!"

That's fine until you get the part where players start killing each other. I, and I'm sure many others, feel that if I'm about to get whacked by another player, then that player could at least have the decency to let me know what ungodly combo is about to hand me my own head. Indeed, the type of players who like to push around other players - even IC! - tend to delight in showing off how awesome their character is numerically. The only time that they suddenly become cagey about the mechanics is if they're afraid that another, more experienced player is about to show the entire group that their precious combo doesn't work and make them look stupid. That's the kind of thing we're trying to avoid here.

You speak of trusting the GM, which is a great attitude for all the players to have all the time - If you're the GM. The simple fact is, though, that Number6's character really no longer has any reason to continue adventuring with the problem player's character and that group. If I'm reading this right, the dude just hospitalized 6 just to prove that he's all big an' bad, and the GM and all the other players were totally ok with it. I'd want to get away from that guy, or else seek revenge. Unless 6's character is some kind of crazy submissive masochist then further cooperation is extremely unlikely, and is going to look incredibly contrived if or when it happens. :smallannoyed:

And I'd be willing to bet money that the problem player will brag about that fight forever. So, why continue with the game? Why reroll if the new character is just going to become the problem player's new b****? You can forget about making a character strong enough to beat the problem player - it's nearly a certainty that there's no defense against the secret combo, in the same way that you can't beat someone at 20 questions if they're willing to lie to the other players. What is 6 going to do now? Trust the GM? :smallconfused:

Talic
2008-08-11, 01:11 AM
That's fine until you get the part where players start killing each other. I, and I'm sure many others, feel that if I'm about to get whacked by another player, then that player could at least have the decency to let me know what ungodly combo is about to hand me my own head. Indeed, the type of players who like to push around other players - even IC! - tend to delight in showing off how awesome their character is numerically. The only time that they suddenly become cagey about the mechanics is if they're afraid that another, more experienced player is about to show the entire group that their precious combo doesn't work and make them look stupid. That's the kind of thing we're trying to avoid here. In that instance, I'd not reveal it on the grounds that if you're about to roll a new character, I'd prefer you not have the exact answer to everything I've got. Just sayin.

You speak of trusting the GM, which is a great attitude for all the players to have all the time - If you're the GM. The simple fact is, though, that Number6's character really no longer has any reason to continue adventuring with the problem player's character and that group. If I'm reading this right, the dude just hospitalized 6 just to prove that he's all big an' bad, and the GM and all the other players were totally ok with it. I'd want to get away from that guy, or else seek revenge. Unless 6's character is some kind of crazy submissive masochist then further cooperation is extremely unlikely, and is going to look incredibly contrived if or when it happens. :smallannoyed:No. All players should trust the GM because, if they don't... Well, they shouldn't be playing in that game, and should be finding one with a better group dynamic. Your analysis is spot on. In this instance, I've stated, that I fully support Number 6 driving the physical adept into a concrete wall via dump truck. Kill the character for messing with life, death, and personal finances without good cause. Revenge is a perfectly acceptable recourse to the OP's situation. If possible, have the entire group help. Team-killing shouldn't be an accepted act in a group, but you take care of it IN character, rather than Out.

And I'd be willing to bet money that the problem player will brag about that fight forever. So, why continue with the game? Why reroll if the new character is just going to become the problem player's new b****? You can forget about making a character strong enough to beat the problem player - there's no defense against the secret combo. What is 6 going to do now, trust the GM? :smallconfused:
No, he should then follow the 2nd course. Find a game where he can trust the GM. I'm not saying you trust someone who's shown himself unworthy of trust.

Those are the games you leave.

Jade_Tarem
2008-08-11, 01:19 AM
I guess that could work, Talic, but it seems like a kind of utopian group dynamic that you're talking about, there. Oddly enough, I'd love to be in that group, but I'd hate to apply your rules to mine.

Talic
2008-08-11, 01:32 AM
I guess that could work, Talic, but it seems like a kind of utopian group dynamic that you're talking about, there. Oddly enough, I'd love to be in that group, but I'd hate to apply your rules to mine.

It often works out that way. If you have a GM that's genuinely trying to be fair, it relieves a lot of the stress, especially if he's experienced.

Granted, once players advance to a certain level of play, hiding sheets is considered a sign of mistrust. I don't like metagaming, nor do any of my players. Once you get to the point where everyone gets good at not playing the meta, there's no point in hiding a sheet. After all, if player and character knowledge are seperate? Well, there's no issue with player knowledge in game. It's a rare player that can do this, though, so most don't really begrudge hidden sheets too much.

I suppose I've been spoiled on DMing and playing. I find few GM's that I'll stick with, because I see them as more interested in telling their story than creating a fun experience. I have a very high standard for GM's, and when one doesn't meet it, I usually drop group.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-08-11, 01:33 AM
And that has no place in a gathering of friends.

Tallic seems to have it alright from the get go in his posts here. I would argue this one point: I personally believe that in a gathering of friends, one player would not attack the other. As is stated in many written manuals, guides to playing (by experienced players on the net), and in random posts: Good role-playing can go hand in hand with good playing.

A good role-player (and friend) will find a good, character driven reason to not take another player out for the night's adventures. I don't know the whole situation here, but I would say the other person's problem is not cheating but lording his power over other players. (If he was provoked by an equally poor role-player, then there is less of a problem.)

So yes, in a gathering of friends, one player should be able to keep information secret, and everyone should trust the GM. But everyone (not just the GM) should be making a concerted effort to ensure that everyone is having fun and is able to participate.

There's my two copper, or whatever they use in Shadowrun. :smalltongue:

Talic
2008-08-11, 01:39 AM
A good role-player (and friend) will find a good, character driven reason to not take another player out for the night's adventures. I don't know the whole situation here, but I would say the other person's problem is not cheating but lording his power over other players. (If he was provoked by an equally poor role-player, then there is less of a problem.)Agreed. In fact, I think that the offending character did transgress on the OP here. I don't see that as a reason for the OP to transgress on the GM though. If Player 2 opened the door to a bit of violence, and the game setting is designed as shadowrun is, around intrigue, suspicion, and even a bit of backstabbing, then, well, he's no right to be mad when Player 1 plants explosives in the doorway and rings the doorbell.

In party conflict is not something that shouldn't be happening between friends. In party conflict for the reason the OP gave? Yeah, that shouldn't happen. So you react to it. But in game problems get in game answers, adn out of game problems get out of game answers. This one's both, so you deal with it as such. Revenge on the character, and a discussion with the character that showboating and bragging rights aren't good RP.

So yes, in a gathering of friends, one player should be able to keep information secret, and everyone should trust the GM. But everyone (not just the GM) should be making a concerted effort to ensure that everyone is having fun and is able to participate.

There's my two copper, or whatever they use in Shadowrun. :smalltongue:True enough.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-08-11, 10:14 AM
After reading the rest of the threat I think the player might have a legitimate reason to hide his C-sheet.

It's pretty much either that or he's a gimp who misunderstands the rules ... because as the rules are, there's just no good reason for a troll to ever willingly get a cyberarm.

... actually, I take that back. I could see a troll doing it for the ability to start with a good Agility for firearms usage, as well as possibly a cyberarm gyromount. Of course, neither of those have anything to do with a specialist in unarmed hand-to-hand combat.

TeeEl
2008-08-11, 05:28 PM
Is a player at the chess table obliged to tell his opponent exactly what his moves mean, and the attacks that he's set up, just because the opponent doesn't understand a french opening? No. The players know how all the pieces move, and to get interaction, and the WHY? Well, that's what makes different players different.

If he's playing a clearly inferior player, who has admitted he is having troubles with his opponent's technique and asks for help, then it is good sportsmanship and good manners to talk him through it a bit, yes. What good is preserving his ignorance supposed to accomplish?

Suppose Number 6 had started a similar thread, but with no accusation of cheating he simply asked "What do you need to do to pull this off?" and received pointers on several possible builds capable of achieving what he describes. Would this also be a show of bad faith in the GM?

Note that I don't think anyone is under any obligation to explain how a player did something; I just think there are very few good reasons not to explain how they could have done it.


They're not. They shouldn't be. If the situation you describe is true, then at a RPG table, there should just be 5 players, all with the exact same tasks. All should be able to equally overrule the other, and all should have the final say.

And then you have 6 year old cops and robbers, which essentially boils down to:
"Bang! I shot you!"
"Nuh uh, you missed!"
"Uh huh!"

Clearly none of these players trust each other at all and they have no business playing together.

Talic
2008-08-11, 07:38 PM
If he's playing a clearly inferior player, who has admitted he is having troubles with his opponent's technique and asks for help, then it is good sportsmanship and good manners to talk him through it a bit, yes. What good is preserving his ignorance supposed to accomplish?If that's what he were doing? Maybe. But that doesn't entitle him to a specific build, so much as a primer on how to build synergy in the game for effective characters. Further, that's not what he did. He suspected the character of cheating, because he did something he didn't understand, and trumped him. You don't apply OOC solutions to an IC problem. General help is fine, to learn the game. But to see it as "good sportsmanship" that someone who opposed you tell you all his methods and tricks for how he beat you? Apply to chess, again, and see how well it holds up. Not very. That's not being a "good sport". That's handholding, and it doesn't build better players. Rather, it cripples them into dependency on others to develop their concepts for them.

Suppose Number 6 had started a similar thread, but with no accusation of cheating he simply asked "What do you need to do to pull this off?" and received pointers on several possible builds capable of achieving what he describes. Would this also be a show of bad faith in the GM?Nope. But that's not what he did. Your above "suppose" starts out with the assumption that everything DOES, in fact, work, and he just doesn't see it. It's not a challenge, but a request.

Note that I don't think anyone is under any obligation to explain how a player did something; I just think there are very few good reasons not to explain how they could have done it.Which is fine. Nothing about this thread figuring out how such a thing may be accomplished is wrong. The wrong is when you browbeat other characters with accusations of cheating, along with the GM, and everyone else that happens to do something you don't agree with. "I don't know how it's done, so it's probably cheating and favoritism" is a pretty darn arrogant statement. And not a friendly one.


Clearly none of these players trust each other at all and they have no business playing together.None? Wouldn't go that far. Some certainly have issues, though.

TeeEl
2008-08-11, 10:09 PM
General help is fine, to learn the game. But to see it as "good sportsmanship" that someone who opposed you tell you all his methods and tricks for how he beat you? Apply to chess, again, and see how well it holds up. Not very. That's not being a "good sport". That's handholding, and it doesn't build better players. Rather, it cripples them into dependency on others to develop their concepts for them.

Then shame on everyone who ever attempted to tutor someone else at chess, I suppose.

There's a difference between being given instructions and applying them successfully yourself. That's what learning is. Giving good instructions to begin with doesn't cripple the process.


Nope. But that's not what he did. Your above "suppose" starts out with the assumption that everything DOES, in fact, work, and he just doesn't see it. It's not a challenge, but a request.Which is fine. Nothing about this thread figuring out how such a thing may be accomplished is wrong. The wrong is when you browbeat other characters with accusations of cheating, along with the GM, and everyone else that happens to do something you don't agree with. "I don't know how it's done, so it's probably cheating and favoritism" is a pretty darn arrogant statement. And not a friendly one.

Sure, but by itself it's not worth jumping on him for. Whether he makes an accusation or request, either way he is making a confession of ignorance; giving a brief explanation of a way that the "impossible" stunt should be a satisfactory remedy, without needing "secret" information to be divulged. If he wants to make himself into a bit of an ass in announcing his ignorance, that's his prerogative. Certainly there exists a distinct possibility that he'll turn into a problem player, but if he's got an ounce of sense in him then getting shot down a couple of times will teach him some humility.


None? Wouldn't go that far. Some certainly have issues, though.

I meant the specific 5 players in your example had trust issues, since otherwise they would have had more faith in each other's judgment calls. Astonishingly enough, people occasionally are capable of playing cooperatively without needing a babysitter.

Talic
2008-08-11, 11:45 PM
Then shame on everyone who ever attempted to tutor someone else at chess, I suppose.Judging by the demeanor and nature of the offending player, I suspect that this was more a competition than a lesson. If the point is to teach, then certainly, you explain the moves. If the point is to compete... Well, there's a reason football teams don't publish their playbooks.

There's a difference between being given instructions and applying them successfully yourself. That's what learning is. Giving good instructions to begin with doesn't cripple the process.See above.

Sure, but by itself it's not worth jumping on him for. Whether he makes an accusation or request, either way he is making a confession of ignorance; giving a brief explanation of a way that the "impossible" stunt should be a satisfactory remedy, without needing "secret" information to be divulged. If he wants to make himself into a bit of an ass in announcing his ignorance, that's his prerogative. Certainly there exists a distinct possibility that he'll turn into a problem player, but if he's got an ounce of sense in him then getting shot down a couple of times will teach him some humility.Accusations such as that have no place if everything is among friends, and there is a level of trust. If someone accused me of something, friend or no, I would most certainly jump on him. Quickly. It's one thing to admit an imperfect understanding. It's another to call someone a cheater because you don't see how it's done. You're very adamant that everyone should help this one player, and be a good teacher, but there's also a responsibility to be a good student.

I meant the specific 5 players in your example had trust issues, since otherwise they would have had more faith in each other's judgment calls. Astonishingly enough, people occasionally are capable of playing cooperatively without needing a babysitter.Moderator does not equal babysitter. If people are playing cooperatively, one is only needed to tell the story, keep everything balanced, and handle the little bits of privileged information here and there. If one is needed to "babysit", that really detracts from the rest of the game.

Though, on a side note, if the OP had no trust issues, I doubt the thread title above would have been used. So I do believe that some lack of faith in judgement calls exists. Hooray for examples that parallel the situation.

Blanks
2008-08-12, 01:50 AM
I'm playing DnD and in my group we are constantly going over each others builds. It's just so easy to either miss or "gain" a bonus when you calculate attack bonuses in weird situations:

Blanks: I attack him, I have an AB of 17
Player 1: plus my bless spell
Blanks: Right, thats 18
Player 2: Yeah but you're firing into melee/on lower ground/standing on your tongue, thats minus 4.
Blanks: Thats included because I have the feat "Attacking while standing on your tongue"
GM: You only get half bonus from that because it's friday - that was part of the "Curse of DOOOOOOM" remember?
Blanks: Right, so I'm at 16?
Player 1: I think so...
GM: Use 16


(Okay normally it's not that bad, but sometimes..!)

only1doug
2008-08-12, 04:44 AM
I'm playing DnD and in my group we are constantly going over each others builds. It's just so easy to either miss or "gain" a bonus when you calculate attack bonuses in weird situations:

Blanks: I attack him, I have an AB of 17
Player 1: plus my bless spell
Blanks: Right, thats 18
Player 2: Yeah but you're firing into melee/on lower ground/standing on your tongue, thats minus 4.
Blanks: Thats included because I have the feat "Attacking while standing on your tongue"
GM: You only get half bonus from that because it's friday - that was part of the "Curse of DOOOOOOM" remember?
Blanks: Right, so I'm at 16?
Player 1: I think so...
GM: Use 16


(Okay normally it's not that bad, but sometimes..!)

Normally not that bad? my sessions are constantly getting random modifiers added...
+2 for charging, +2 for flanking, +1 from the sorcerer casting bless, -2 from lighting conditions, -1 for fatigued....

we normally just roll the dice and only add up the bonus / penalties if it looks questionable.



Quote: last session
Rogue: "4, well thats a miss then"
Rest of party (in Unison): "Add it up!"
Rogue: "4+15+2+1=22"
GM: "you hit, roll damage"
Rogue: "24"


But the OP's group like to do things differently, thats their choice.
I prefer the cooperative style myself.

Talic
2008-08-12, 04:54 AM
Issues such as those, where it's showing clearly visible modifiers is one thing.

But what if, perhaps, that one player didn't want to let others know that he has "Attacking while standing on your tongue", for whatever reason?

Well, then, the half penalty negation would need to be kept from the other players.

They'd think all he had was a +14 modifier, but in actuality, he has a +16.

If he said +16, and one of those other players corrected him, and the DM overruled that, would the first thing you jump to, if he's a friend, be "possibly cheating" ??

I might think, "possibly overlooking a detail", but never cheating. If I even suspected someone of cheating, I'd likely not play with them.

But I'd certainly include the possibility, "I'm overlooking something, or don't have all the facts". And I wouldn't assume one of those over the other, until I found out why.

Blanks
2008-08-12, 09:06 AM
If he said +16, and one of those other players corrected him, and the DM overruled that, would the first thing you jump to, if he's a friend, be "possibly cheating" ??

I might think, "possibly overlooking a detail", but never cheating. If I even suspected someone of cheating, I'd likely not play with them.

You keep arguing like its you in this situation. It's not.
Number 6 has stated that he suspects cheating, that he thinks that the other player is a jerk (more politely but still) and we know that he is playing with these people.

It's no use saying you only play with your friends who does'nt cheat. Thats not relevant here.

My advice to Number 6 would be, looking at his situation, to take an OOC (out of character) talk about interparty conflict. When its has been decided wether this is allowed or not and under which rules, the IC conflict will probably disappear.

Jayabalard
2008-08-12, 10:30 AM
You keep arguing like its you in this situation. It's not.Perhaps it is. Since this is the internet, it is possible that Talic is the other character who is involved.


You don't apply OOC solutions to an IC problem.I disagree completely. OOC solutions to game conflcits are are always appropriate, regardless of whether the root of the problem is IC or OOC.

TeeEl
2008-08-12, 05:47 PM
Judging by the demeanor and nature of the offending player, I suspect that this was more a competition than a lesson. If the point is to teach, then certainly, you explain the moves. If the point is to compete... Well, there's a reason football teams don't publish their playbooks.

If the point is to compete, then it is in your interest to see that you have adequate competition. What point is there to competing against someone who cannot challenge you?

Now if the point is to only to win, then you have a point. But then you might as well seek out the crappiest opponents and most one-sided engagements you can find to ensure your victory. "Dude I just totally trounced my 5-year-old nephew's paladin build in the arena. PWN!"


Accusations such as that have no place if everything is among friends, and there is a level of trust. If someone accused me of something, friend or no, I would most certainly jump on him. Quickly.

Suit yourself. I don't think your response here indicates much trust in your friends, though, even if I had it in me to be easily offended by obviously and demonstrably false accusations.


Moderator does not equal babysitter. If people are playing cooperatively, one is only needed to tell the story, keep everything balanced, and handle the little bits of privileged information here and there.

If people are playing cooperatively, then technically one is not needed specifically to tell the story, keep everything balanced, and handle privileged information; everyone can contribute in an equitable fashion (with some difficulty when it comes to keeping information private, but written notes can be quite effective).

I'll be the first to admit that this level of cooperation is rare and often fleeting, but while it is impractical it is not impossible.

Talic
2008-08-12, 08:57 PM
You keep arguing like its you in this situation. It's not.I've already stated what I would do in his situation. Leave the game.


If the point is to compete, then it is in your interest to see that you have adequate competition. What point is there to competing against someone who cannot challenge you?In a competition, it is in your interest to win. Some people are petty, and just want that, whether it's against a worthy foe or not. Most of us call them, "bullies". That is what the offending player is. Answer? Don't associate with them.

Now if the point is to only to win, then you have a point. But then you might as well seek out the crappiest opponents and most one-sided engagements you can find to ensure your victory. "Dude I just totally trounced my 5-year-old nephew's paladin build in the arena. PWN!"See above. That is pretty much what the other dude's doing. Hence, not really a friendly group.

Suit yourself. I don't think your response here indicates much trust in your friends, though, even if I had it in me to be easily offended by obviously and demonstrably false accusations.I trust my friends not to do the things you suggest. They haven't disappointed me yet.
If people are playing cooperatively, then technically one is not needed specifically to tell the story, keep everything balanced, and handle privileged information; everyone can contribute in an equitable fashion (with some difficulty when it comes to keeping information private, but written notes can be quite effective).This skirts dangerously close to Oberoni Fallacy. If it takes a perfect group to make such a system work, then the system you suggest doesn't work.

I'll be the first to admit that this level of cooperation is rare and often fleeting, but while it is impractical it is not impossible.And it's often more work than it's worth. A far easier and more sensible solution is take turns running campaigns... Or even sessions.

TeeEl
2008-08-12, 10:17 PM
In a competition, it is in your interest to win.

Is it? In many competitions (including pretty much any competition that is likely to arise at the roleplaying table) the material rewards for victory range from the negligible to the nonexistent. Is your sense of self-worth so fragile that it has to be reinforced by regular victories?

Note that I'm not against competition, here, but competition and cooperation are not mutually exclusive goals. Competition is good because it encourages you to play your best, and to constantly try to improve yourself. This is something opposing players can help each other achieve, even as they try to one-up one another.

(I imagine you will point out that deliberately revealing hidden information is not necessarily conducive to playing your best, which is true. But when deal with information which a sufficiently skilled player would already know or could have intuited from your moves anyhow, most of the time you may as well share.)


I trust my friends not to do the things you suggest. They haven't disappointed me yet.

The things I suggest? Such as giving advice freely, being frank and open about mechanical rulings, and forgiving the passing transgressions of others? These are the only things I've been suggesting here. I'm glad you have friends you can count on to do none of them.


This skirts dangerously close to Oberoni Fallacy. If it takes a perfect group to make such a system work, then the system you suggest doesn't work. And it's often more work than it's worth.

You've admitted that the system you suggest generally fails to work for you unless you're in charge of everything, too.

My point is not to suggest that doing away with the GM is the ideal way to play, just that mature players who trust one another often don't need mediation. It still makes sense to have one player running the bulk of the story (or at least one player at a time, anyway), and certainly it simplifies things if everyone's clear on who makes the final ruling. But having the players discussing mechanics with one another does not critically undermine the GM's role and lead to instant anarchy unless you're being really paranoid with one another.

Jade_Tarem
2008-08-12, 10:42 PM
Is it? In many competitions (including pretty much any competition that is likely to arise at the roleplaying table) the material rewards for victory range from the negligible to the nonexistent. Is your sense of self-worth so fragile that it has to be reinforced by regular victories?

I thought the answer he gave was hypothetical - like the question he was answering.


(I imagine you will point out that deliberately revealing hidden information is not necessarily conducive to playing your best, which is true. But when deal with information which a sufficiently skilled player would already know or could have intuited from your moves anyhow, most of the time you may as well share.)

Um, what? The whole point of some of the earlier debate here was that we couldn't piece the build together from the moves, although I think someone eventually did come up with a solution...


The things I suggest? Such as giving advice freely, being frank and open about mechanical rulings, and forgiving the passing transgressions of others? These are the only things I've been suggesting here. I'm glad you have friends you can count on to do none of them.

Again, what? If anything, the fault in Talic's argument is the exact opposite of that - his friends (as I see them) are nigh-inhuman in their trust and mutual roleplaying abilities, and the problem would be that not everyone has a group like that.


You've admitted that the system you suggest generally fails to work for you unless you're in charge of everything, too.

My point is not to suggest that doing away with the GM is the ideal way to play, just that mature players who trust one another often don't need mediation. It still makes sense to have one player running the bulk of the story (or at least one player at a time, anyway), and certainly it simplifies things if everyone's clear on who makes the final ruling. But having the players discussing mechanics with one another does not critically undermine the GM's role and lead to instant anarchy unless you're being really paranoid with one another.

I am so very lost. This logical progression is completely alien to me. How is trusting the GM to moderate conflict between players a sign of less trust than every player wanting to check everything themselves?

TeeEl
2008-08-12, 11:12 PM
Again, what? If anything, the fault in Talic's argument is the exact opposite of that - his friends (as I see them) are nigh-inhuman in their trust and mutual roleplaying abilities, and the problem would be that not everyone has a group like that.

Certainly, which is why it baffles me when he says he trusts them not to do the very things I just named.


I am so very lost. This logical progression is completely alien to me. How is trusting the GM to moderate conflict between players a sign of less trust than every player wanting to check everything themselves?

The fact that you have to seek mediation in the first place indicates that you don't really trust the other player. Presumably you still trust the GM, but openly discussing rules with other people is not a breach of the GM's trust by any sane standard.

Talic
2008-08-12, 11:44 PM
Certainly, which is why it baffles me when he says he trusts them not to do the very things I just named.No, I trust my friends to not accuse me of actions, even if it's "admitting lack of comprehension". I trust them to not demand to have proof for everything I do. I trust them to work together as players to make a compelling story... Even if they're not always working together as characters.


The fact that you have to seek mediation in the first place indicates that you don't really trust the other player. Presumably you still trust the GM, but openly discussing rules with other people is not a breach of the GM's trust by any sane standard.
Wrong. Mediation is nothing more than a go between, someone detached from an issue, that can better look at it objectively, and provide an unbiased decision. That does not imply a lack of trust. It implies that they're human, and argue their point.

On a side note, I find comments questioning my personal self worth somewhat uncalled for. I was illustrating that the point of a competition is to compete. You don't go into a competition to lose, and ideally, you give it 100%. That doesn't excuse poor sportsmanship or rude behaviour, but most people don't get in a competition to lose. In the future, please restrict your comments here to the issue at hand, rather than me personally. Thanks in advance for that.

TeeEl
2008-08-13, 12:38 AM
Wrong. Mediation is nothing more than a go between, someone detached from an issue, that can better look at it objectively, and provide an unbiased decision. That does not imply a lack of trust. It implies that they're human, and argue their point.

I guess it must be me who has overly high standards of trust now, not you, as indeed my standards appear to be superhuman. I would generally trust a friend to be able to come to an amicable agreement over a relatively straightforward dispute. If someone makes a claim which is easily demonstrated to be false (e.g. "You can't legally do X, it's impossible"), I would trust them to be able to admit their mistake.


On a side note, I find comments questioning my personal self worth somewhat uncalled for. I was illustrating that the point of a competition is to compete. You don't go into a competition to lose, and ideally, you give it 100%. That doesn't excuse poor sportsmanship or rude behaviour, but most people don't get in a competition to lose. In the future, please restrict your comments here to the issue at hand, rather than me personally. Thanks in advance for that.

I apologize if you took the comment personally. I had intended that as the generic "you" (the same "you" to whom winning in a competition is supposedly of such intense interest).

I agree that in a competition, you ideally give it 100%. I hold that giving it 100% requires an opponent capable of actually challenging your performance; therefore in the interest of maintaining my game at as high a level as possible, if an opponent solicits advice from me I will readily give them at least a general overview. That doesn't mean I have any interest in losing.

Talic
2008-08-13, 01:28 AM
I guess it must be me who has overly high standards of trust now, not you, as indeed my standards appear to be superhuman. I would generally trust a friend to be able to come to an amicable agreement over a relatively straightforward dispute. If someone makes a claim which is easily demonstrated to be false (e.g. "You can't legally do X, it's impossible"), I would trust them to be able to admit their mistake.And what if it's not easily demonstrated? What if it's a gray area of the rules? I'd expect easily demonstrated things to never be argued about in the first place. Perhaps that's more an expectation of competence, rather than trust, I don't know.


I apologize if you took the comment personally. I had intended that as the generic "you" (the same "you" to whom winning in a competition is supposedly of such intense interest).I never made any comments to "intense interest", and would appreciate if you laid back a little off putting words in my mouth. I'm posting quite enough on my own, I need no additional assistance from you in that regard.


I agree that in a competition, you ideally give it 100%. I hold that giving it 100% requires an opponent capable of actually challenging your performance; therefore in the interest of maintaining my game at as high a level as possible, if an opponent solicits advice from me I will readily give them at least a general overview. That doesn't mean I have any interest in losing.

Wrong. When you put forth total effort against less than worthy opponents, it's generally referred to as "brutal", "ruthless", or "bullying". That you seek worthy opponents does not mean everyone does. Please, less dancing around the point.

For whatever reason, the player who was opposite Number 6 WAS interested in competition, and in demonstrating his character's superiority. Further, he was not inclined to teach his opponent. Perhaps he won't improve against lower caliber opponents, but that doesn't stop him from hitting a sledgehammer with a mosquito out of some need to win.

That is the exact issue I have described. Multiple times now. And you keep blowing it off with some theory about how competitors teach.

Not in this instance. Which is why, many posts earlier, I advocated Number 6 leaving that group.

However, I never advocate raising accusations of cheating, or other impropriety, without clear and unassailable evidence. If this entire group couldn't figure out how to do it, then we can move on to, was something done wrong.

But you started out with a mechanical dispute, when it wasn't. It's a personality conflict, and a player issue. The actual problem is beneath that cheating complaint, and runs deeper, methinks.

Totally Guy
2008-08-13, 06:56 AM
Think I've seen something like this before. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0272.html)

xPANCAKEx
2008-08-13, 08:18 AM
I wanna know if the situations been resolved yet - did they cheat? what did the OP do? Was the DM helpful? should i buy that extra burrito?

so many questions left unanswered

TeeEl
2008-08-13, 12:20 PM
And what if it's not easily demonstrated? What if it's a gray area of the rules? I'd expect easily demonstrated things to never be argued about in the first place. Perhaps that's more an expectation of competence, rather than trust, I don't know.

I don't expect people to memorize every rule of every rulebook in play, unless they're playing a very simple game. I guess that must be a low expectation of competence on my part.

If a player doesn't believe or disagrees with another player's interpretation of the rules, then certainly it's time for the GM to adjudicate. But if the GM is ruling on a gray area that's unclear in the rulebooks, then I'd generally hope they'd discuss their ruling with the group. This isn't Mao; players ought to have access to the basic rules they're playing by.


However, I never advocate raising accusations of cheating, or other impropriety, without clear and unassailable evidence. If this entire group couldn't figure out how to do it, then we can move on to, was something done wrong.

What a coincidence! I never advocate raising accusations of cheating either, at least in the sense of recommending it as a positive course of action. I suppose I am advocating in the defense of it, but although I regard it as a trivial and easily corrected mistake which there is little point to taking personally, I still think it's wrong.


But you started out with a mechanical dispute, when it wasn't. It's a personality conflict, and a player issue. The actual problem is beneath that cheating complaint, and runs deeper, methinks.

Well, yes. However, I am not sure of the link between "This specific situation has another, more serious underlying cause" and "Any attempt anywhere to raise the possibility of improper play, implied or otherwise, is an intolerable insult to both the accused and the GM". This seems to be your assertion throughout the thread, so as I see it one of the following must be true:

-I have grossly misinterpreted the thrust of your posts and you think accusations of cheating generally aren't such a big deal after all, and were only cautioning against it in this particular instance; or
-There is a logical path by which your assertion can be reasoned from the fact of the singular problem of the bad behavior of the other player in the OP, which I am simply missing; or
-The specifics of the situation in the OP are not, in fact, relevant to your broader assertion and you're just trying to dodge the issue.

Tokiko Mima
2008-08-13, 01:53 PM
... He was dealing out totally impossible amounts of damage in unarmed combat. I asked him (nicely) how he did it, and he said it was a secret. I've been through the rule book trying to figure out how he did it. He keeps his character sheet hidden at all times so I can't sneak a peek and see how he does it....


Well, he could be abusing die size increases from PrC's like Fist of the Forest (Complete Champion). There was a CharOps build that did something like 64d100 unarmed damage based on getting a die size increase above d20 to d100. It's very cheddar cheezy obviously, and in no way as cool as a Hellfire Glaivelock with stacking SLA Metamagic. :smalltongue:

Seriously, you shouldn't brag about something you are keeping secret. There's something deeply wrong with someone that tries to disguise something he's apparently so proud of that he can't keep quiet about it. It's very double-think (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink).

xPANCAKEx
2008-08-13, 01:55 PM
Well, he could be abusing die size increases from PrC's like Fist of the Forest (Complete Champion). There was a CharOps build that did something like 64d100 unarmed damage based on getting a die size increase above d20 to d100. It's very cheddar cheezy obviously, and in no way as cool as a Hellfire Glaivelock with stacking SLA Metamagic. :smalltongue:

Seriously, you shouldn't brag about something you are keeping secret. There's something deeply wrong with someone that tries to disguise something he's apparently so proud of that he can't keep quiet about it. It's very double-think (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink).


i think the op has said it was in a shadowrun game ?

Chronicled
2008-08-13, 01:56 PM
Well, he could be abusing die size increases from PrC's like Fist of the Forest (Complete Champion). There was a CharOps build that did something like 64d100 unarmed damage based on getting a die size increase above d20 to d100. It's very cheddar cheezy obviously, and in no way as cool as a Hellfire Glaivelock with stacking SLA Metamagic. :smalltongue:

Seriously, you shouldn't brag about something you are keeping secret. There's something deeply wrong with someone that tries to disguise something he's apparently so proud of that he can't keep quiet about it. It's very double-think (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink).

Again, the system in question is Shadowrun.