Audacious Cheating

[KillianHawkeye]

It's not good-faith debate. There's no thought put into an argument. It's just rote denial and ad hominem.

Says the guy trying to psychoanalyze the posts of people disagreeing with him?

[Captain Cap]

Its really easy to tear apart an argument line by line while disregarding it holistically. It's easy and lazy. How would I argue back? By breaking down my detractor one word at a time?

You're literally defending cheating, of course it's easy tearing your argument apart. But let's assume for a second your position deserve more than one-line rebuttals and make it clear: the moment a group of players accept to play a game together and go over an optional session zero, said players accept a set of rules and social conduct to follow, rules and social conduct that lay out the expectations they will be entitled to throughout the game. If at that point player A accepts said rules and social conduct, but then consciously violates them during the game, they are also violating the expectations the other players have every right to base their fun on. By doing that, player A is showing dishonesty, self-centeredness and a lack of respect and consideration toward the other players and their time. And that is bad.

It's not good-faith debate.

You're the one throwing words like "sociopathic", "paranoid" etc. around and expect a good-faith debate?

[Burley]

If the individual parts of your argument don't stand on their own, they don't stand together. Especially when, ironically, your arguments are the ones that have so far been purely ad hominem.

Saying "you misuse psychology terms" is not an ad hominem attack (...add that to the list of misused terms). Saying "You're projecting. You're paranoid. You're a sociopath." on the other hand, is.

One attacks an action (misuse of a word). One attacks a person; even if everything you said were 100% true and backed by fact...using it to dismiss someone's argument is what defines an ad hominem attack. You're not disregarding your opponent's argument based on any sort of logic, but based on some fundamental facet of their being.

Assume somebody in this discussion WERE a proven, diagnosed sociopath. They make a comment on the current social state of Talakeal's group and make a suggestion.

Rejecting the argument with "that's wrong, because you're a sociopath" is an ad hominem attack, period. It doesn't address anything about the actual argument being made.

So, it wasn't ad hominem when you implied that I'd only just taken Psych 101? "Try to get a little deeper into the coursework before you start trying to diagnose people over the web." I'm a grown person, by the way, with a BA and a career in education. So, the comment was absolutely meant to insult me as a person, and had nothing to do with my argument. That's an ad hom, straight up.

I was pointing out the hard line in the sand that you draw; you and several others here. You place lying about dice rolls tantamount to theft and backstabbing. They are not equal. There is a gray area and it is vast. I was pointing out the absurdity of your strong moral stance against somebody saying they rolled higher than they maybe did. I pointed out that you have a whole list of personality traits that you won't suffer to be in a room with. Your list doesn't seem to include people who lack compassion nor those who see the world as purely diametric. You don't list people who are obtuse or sadistic, either. Those people are on my list.

And, I never said you were projecting, or paranoid, or sociopathic. Paraphrases of your comments certainly were, though. I didn't say "You're wrong because you're a sociopath." I actually don't think I ever even said you were wrong. I implied that not being able to understand another person's position is sociopathy, which it is. Anybody can exhibit psychosis without being psychotic. The fact that you twisted my words to internalize them as an insult is, again, just proving my point. I was pointing to the absurdity of your statements. But, frankly, I'm okay with you being insulted now. Not my original intent, but sometimes, things just work out.

Says the guy trying to psychoanalyze the posts of people disagreeing with him?

Yeah, yeah. I know. I see it, too. I never said I wasn't a hypocrite. For what it's worth, I'm not just saying "You're wrong," as a debate tactic. I'm, y'know, fashioning an argument.

[Rynjin]

So, it wasn't ad hominem when you implied that I'd only just taken Psych 101? "Try to get a little deeper into the coursework before you start trying to diagnose people over the web." I'm a grown person, by the way, with a BA and a career in education. So, the comment was absolutely meant to insult me as a person, and had nothing to do with my argument. That's an ad hom, straight up.

Oh, it was absolutely meant to be a flippant rebuff, but the difference is I wasn't using it to refute your argument; just make light of your ignorance.

To be clear, even as a "diagnosis", your comments were simply...incorrect. "Not being able to understand another person's position" in no way implies sociopathy. It may imply issues with empathy, but there are a wide range of conditions that can result in that, and again using them to try and win an internet argument is very silly behavior.

I was pointing out the hard line in the sand that you draw; you and several others here. You place lying about dice rolls tantamount to theft and backstabbing. They are not equal. There is a gray area and it is vast. I was pointing out the absurdity of your strong moral stance against somebody saying they rolled higher than they maybe did. I pointed out that you have a whole list of personality traits that you won't suffer to be in a room with. Your list doesn't seem to include people who lack compassion nor those who see the world as purely diametric. You don't list people who are obtuse or sadistic, either. Those people are on my list.

Yes, I did not make a comprehensive list of the top 100 personality traits I dislike, ranked from least to most reviled, you are correct.

Do you have a point to make here, or is that all you wanted to point out?

And, I never said you were projecting, or paranoid, or sociopathic. Paraphrases of your comments certainly were, though. I didn't say "You're wrong because you're a sociopath." I actually don't think I ever even said you were wrong. I implied that not being able to understand another person's position is sociopathy, which it is. Anybody can exhibit psychosis without being psychotic. The fact that you twisted my words to internalize them as an insult is, again, just proving my point. I was pointing to the absurdity of your statements. But, frankly, I'm okay with you being insulted now. Not my original intent, but sometimes, things just work out.

Conversations exist in context. Taking a phrase said by a specific person and talking around with "well technically I didn't say *weasel weasel*" doesn't fly. I'm not your coworker, I don't have to put up with that just because you didn't explicitly violate any HR guidelines and I can't call you on it. I can simply take your words as they were meant.

[Segev]

Possible reasons for cheating include, but are not limited to:

• Hating "losing"/"failing."
• Not wanting your character (or another character your action is crucial to saving) to die.
• Wanting the loot that you will lose out on if you fail.
• Wanting to win (or "win").
• Having rolled nothing but failing results, seeing that "1" on your die, and declaring it to be a "20" out of sheer frustration and desire to actually succeed at something tonight, darn it. (I have a friend who has atrocious dice luck, and I am consistently amazed he doesn't do this. If he ever has, nobody's caught or called him on it.)
• You're pretty sure the monster is one crit away from death and you're sick of the fight and just want it to be over (especially true if, looking around the table, everyone seems to be equally tired of this combat).

I should note that these are not justifications (to anybody but the cheater). Just some reasons motivating cheating.

[kyoryu]

It's really, really, simple. You follow the standards of the group, or you get kicked out.

I swear like a sailor. If I'm in a group, and they ask me not to, I then don't swear. This isn't hard. If I don't, I expect that they'll disinvite me in one of many ways (literally ask me to leave, fail to invite me to future things, etc.)

Swearing isn't objectively morally bad. Nobody is harmed by it. But if they don't like it, I won't do it. And I find the restriction too onerous, I won't hang out with them either.

This is how groups work.

[Captain Cap]

I was pointing out the hard line in the sand that you draw; you and several others here. You place lying about dice rolls tantamount to theft and backstabbing. They are not equal.

Holy moly strawman!

There is a gray area and it is vast. I was pointing out the absurdity of your strong moral stance against somebody saying they rolled higher than they maybe did.

Oh goodness, imagine disapproving of lying!

Your list doesn't seem to include people who lack compassion nor those who see the world as purely diametric. You don't list people who are obtuse or sadistic, either. Those people are on my list.

Of course he hasn't pointed out such personality traits, they're are beyond the scope of the debate, unless anyone here has accused the cheater of having such traits, which doesn't seem to be the case to me.

"Cheating is bad."
"Yeah, but what about sadism, eh? That's bad too, why aren't you saying it?"
"..."

And, I never said you were projecting, or paranoid, or sociopathic. Paraphrases of your comments certainly were, though. I didn't say "You're wrong because you're a sociopath." I actually don't think I ever even said you were wrong. I implied that not being able to understand another person's position is sociopathy, which it is. Anybody can exhibit psychosis without being psychotic. The fact that you twisted my words to internalize them as an insult is, again, just proving my point. I was pointing to the absurdity of your statements. But, frankly, I'm okay with you being insulted now. Not my original intent, but sometimes, things just work out.

It wasn't your original intent, yeah sure. And then you expect a good-faith debate. The hypocrisy oozes through my screen.

[Burley]

Self scrubbed

I'm over it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think I made my point just fine, so, feel free to belittle me. It's only strengthening my argument.

No, it wasn't. Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

Wanting to win is fine and normal, I like winning too. Cheating is something else, it shows a total lack of respect for the other players. Every time someone cheats they are spitting in the faces of the other people who don't cheat.

Which gets us back to the 'social contract' between the people at the table, and the breeches thereof.

If you are engaging in behavior that is acceptable to the group, then there's not a problem. If you are engaging in behavior that is unacceptable to your group, then that is a problem. That's how groups work.

He shoots, he scores!

"Objective" morality has nothing to do with it. If you do things that bother people, at some point they will stop associating with you. That's just how social dynamics work. They don't (generally) have an obligation to deal with you, and you don't have an obligation to deal with them.

This takes us, as usual, to something like the infamous DBAD appeal (IIRC, that's been called Wheaton's Law).

[Rynjin]

It's really, really, simple. You follow the standards of the group, or you get kicked out.

I swear like a sailor. If I'm in a group, and they ask me not to, I then don't swear. This isn't hard. If I don't, I expect that they'll disinvite me in one of many ways (literally ask me to leave, fail to invite me to future things, etc.)

Swearing isn't objectively morally bad. Nobody is harmed by it. But if they don't like it, I won't do it. And I find the restriction too onerous, I won't hang out with them either.

This is how groups work.

Pretty much, yeah. Conform, convince, or leave.

A willingness to talk about WHY you'd like to cheat is already much more socially acceptable than simply doing it and doubling down on lying when confronted.

I have a friend in my group who had been at first accidentally, and then intentionally cheating for a while on his spell slot preparations. This is in Pathfinder, and he'd essentially been playing his Witch with spells prepared as though he were a 5e Wizard (or a Pathfinder Arcanist).

It eventually led to a particularly confusing turn at the table and we asked straight up "Wait how many of this spell did you prepare?" and he came clean. He just kinda hated how spells are prepared by default and wanted to change it, so once he told he truth I kinda just...let him. It's not that big of a deal in the grand scheme to houserule that a Witch can prepare spells as an Arcanist.

Lying about rolls is a lot harder to resolve, but at least don't treat everyone else at the table like they're fools.

[Captain Cap]

scrub

That actually sounds like a compliment all considered.

scrub

No, he cares about basic decency. A cheater doesn't show basic decency toward their "friends", why should they do in return, why should they enable toxic behavior, cater to a person who clearly doesn't respect them?

scrub

Friendship implies reciprocal respect, which automatically excludes serious cheaters.

[icefractal]

The player isn't taking other people's dice and changing the result. Her actions, literally, only affect herself and the DM. The other players are affecting themselves, taking one player's actions as a personal affront. There is something sick about kicking people away from the table for the way they want to have fun, especially when they aren't doing anything insulting or harmful to the other players.

From the OP though, it sounds like she's using the cheating to do some serious spotlight-hogging, and that does affect the other players. So even if you say nobody should care about the concept of fair play, there's still an issue.

Now maybe you're someone who only cares about seeing others happy. If your role is suddenly "the sidekick to Player X's awesome character" then you've got no problem with that? That's not most people though - in a game like D&D, they want to be on a relatively level playing field.

"But then they're being immature, placing their own wants above this player's psychological need for validation" - why do you assume the cheating player has needs and the other players only have wants? You're putting this assumption of "the poor innocent new player, bullied by the mean other players", but it could just as easily be framed the other way around.

And frankly, I'm not a therapist, especially for someone I've only known a short time. If someone's looking to solve their issues by cheating in my game, it's the wrong venue for that and they should see a real therapist.

[gbaji]

I made a thread about this a few months ago.

In our last group I made a healer, and then two other players switched their characters to "the healer, but better than Talakeal" so I switched to a monk and then four other players switched their characters to "a monk, but better than Talakeal".

While it seemed like a jerk thing to do, the prevailing forum opinion seemed to be that I was the one who was being immature for caring.

To be fair though, in that case, you and everyone else used the exact same rules to build your characters. For every skill point someone else was better at doing something then you, you had a skill point in which you were better at something else (or feats/powers/whatever). That conversation was more about desired roles of characters in a party.

That's not the same as "cheating", where you are *not* better at something than someone else, *didn't* spend as many skillpoints/feats/slots/whatever on something, and *didn't* have to sacrifice some other capabilities in the game to have those things in the first place, but you just fudge the dice to be an effective as someone else who did. Cheating in a group game absolutely harms everyone else who is *not* cheating.

The idea was not to say she was intentionally using loaded dice, but to let her know that we knew that there was something weird going on with her rolls so that, hopefully, she would dial back on the cheating without even actually having to be called out on it. Of course, she has only gotten more blatant sice.

Not a terrible idea. Sadly, I've found that most often, people who do this sort of stuff don't get subtle hints like that. Well. They may get them, but it doens't tend to change the behavior.

Assume somebody in this discussion WERE a proven, diagnosed sociopath. They make a comment on the current social state of Talakeal's group and make a suggestion.

Rejecting the argument with "that's wrong, because you're a sociopath" is an ad hominem attack, period. It doesn't address anything about the actual argument being made.

Yup. Even crazy, stupid, <insert anything negative you want> people can still be correct about something. If you want to show that something that was said is wrong, focus on what was said and why it is wrong, not on who said it. It's a tough concept for many people to get, and even tougher to be dilligent at sticking to it, cause, frankly, it's just so much easier to attack the person than the position. I really do sometimes think that graduating from any sort of primary education should require passing a class on critical thinking, and one chapter of that class should be titled "argument vs debate".

Wishful thinking, I know.

I was pointing out the hard line in the sand that you draw; you and several others here. You place lying about dice rolls tantamount to theft and backstabbing. They are not equal. There is a gray area and it is vast. I was pointing out the absurdity of your strong moral stance against somebody saying they rolled higher than they maybe did. I pointed out that you have a whole list of personality traits that you won't suffer to be in a room with. Your list doesn't seem to include people who lack compassion nor those who see the world as purely diametric. You don't list people who are obtuse or sadistic, either. Those people are on my list.

We can have a thread about social dynamics in a group, and what attributes contribute to those dynamics. But this thread is about someone cheating on their die rolls.

I feel like we're going to get into another argument about whether cheating on die rolls is really actually "bad" in the first place.

Yeah, yeah. I know. I see it, too. I never said I wasn't a hypocrite. For what it's worth, I'm not just saying "You're wrong," as a debate tactic. I'm, y'know, fashioning an argument.

I'll give you props for recognizing that the two are different. But your argument was at best questionable, and at worst "chock full of fallacies".

The actual "argument" is very simple. Do the players agree to a set of rules when they sit down to play a game? Yes. Do those rules include using dice to determine outcomes? Yes. Do those rules also include abiding by the die rolls (ie: what constitutes a "roll", how we determine the number rolled, etc)? Yes.

So, at the very least, someone cheating in this situation is not playing the same game everyone else agreed to play. We could do some further examination as to why the players are playing the game in the first place, and to what degree everyone following the rules agreed upon contributes to their reason for playing (presumably "to have fun", but we can discuss that as well I suppose). And then follow up with an examination as to the degree to which one person not following those agreed upon rules damages the purpose of the game (which again, we can assume is "to have fun"). And then conclude that by cheating you are making the game "not fun" (or at least "not getting out of it what was expected") for the other players.

We *could* examine other things as well. But there's an infinite number of "other things" out there. Requiring that we do so before we are allowed to examine this one thing is a little bit unreasonable (and also a fallacious argument as it happens).

[EggKookoo]

Have you seen the episode with the Red Cow? And how Kyle takes the moral stance of eating Cartman's farts? Go back and watch a random episode with a different lens and I'll bet you'll see Kyle coming in hot (They're on HBOMax, if you've access). I mean, I'm not going to speak in absolutes, but Kyle often loses his temper or acts foolishly, thinking it will fix the Cartman problem.

I don't recall one about a red cow, and I feel like "Cartman's farts" isn't the best filter. But that's all beside the point. If Kyle is behaving poorly, he's behaving poorly too. What does that have to do with it? Unless you're trying some moral-equivalency thing where the non-cheaters in the OP's situation are just as bad as the cheater because they're cramping his style? If not, why the whataboutism with Kyle?

[kyoryu]

The funny part in this argument is that there's an assumed position, that's not being held for both sides.

"Why is not cheating sooooo important that you'd kick out a friend because of it?"

Okay, well, "why is cheating sooooo important that you'd be willing to anger all of your friends rather than stop doing it?"

[False God]

Just kick her and be done with it. It's clearly bothering you and its clearly bothering the party. That's good enough in my books. The fact that it's cheating and not some other annoying behaviour is just the cherry on top.

[Pauly]

The way I look at the OP, the situation is entirely the GM’s fault.

Allowing players to roll unobserved dice then self declare the outcome is an open invitation to cheating. So if a GM invites players to cheat then they cannot be surprised or disappointed when they find out that players cheat.

While the GM has noticed one player in particular cheating, I would be surprised if the other players haven’t been fudging a few rolls too. It is reasonable to believe that a new player coming to this table would think that occasional fudging of the dice is not just accepted, but the normal practice. The new player is just doing what she thinks everyone else is doing.

The solution is to apply what are the normal table rules in the all the groups I’ve played with, IE:-
rolls only count if
- they are made after they are called for.
- they are in the designated space on the table for dice rolling (floor dice don't count)
- the dice are flat (no cocked dice)
- the outcome is observed by at least one other person.
- (optional) no hard to read dice, so you can’t ‘mistake’ a 6 for a 9 or a 13 for an 18.
- (optional) some form of hard randomizer must be used eg a dice tower, the dice must hit the side of the box.

One solution is to buy a few dice towers so they are easily available and in reach of all players and declare that for dice rolls to count they have to be made via the dice towers.

[Jay R]

You have a lot more faith in dice manufacturers than I do.

Perfectly balanced dice are extremely rare, and it isn't uncommon to buy badly weighted dice on accident.

No, I don't. I clearly stated that weighted dice exist.

But if she were actually rolling those numbers, she wouldn't be hiding those rolls from you. As I wrote, "If she had a die that was really rolling all those 20s, she wouldn't pick it up quickly."

There is no way to fairly turn that into "You have a lot more faith in dice manufacturers than I do." I'm saying that such dice exist, and she isn't using them.

Of course, given her habit of lying about dice rolls, I strongly doubt she actually rolled a thousand dice, let alone that they came out perfectly balanced.


The idea was not to say she was intentionally using loaded dice, but to let her know that we knew that there was something weird going on with her rolls so that, hopefully, she would dial back on the cheating without even actually having to be called out on it. Of course, she has only gotten more blatant sice.

And it failed to fix things. Maybe now you might consider my actual suggestion. As I also wrote:

My recommendation is to introduce a new rule, without any accusation of cheating, and without it even being about her.

When a different player rolls a die without announcing what it's for, then you should say, "I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble following all the die rolls. From now on, I need each person to tell me what the roll is for before you roll, and then leave it on the table so I can see the result. I'm just not able to follow the action right now, and it's my job to know what happens. So that roll doesn't count. Please tell me what you're rolling for, and roll it again." [Depending on how your players think, you might choose the player and tell him or her in advance, so that player can make a point of accepting the new ruling.]

In the ideal setup, the player you're concerned about isn't the first or second to roll under the new rule, and you've already made at least one player re-roll and show you the new result before the first time the problem player rolls. The more people who have already accepted the rule by the time the one you're worried about rolls, the better.

Except for secret rolls, you have to follow the new rule too, and be obvious about doing so. In fact, once (on purpose), roll the die, then say, "Oops. I forgot to tell you what I was rolling for. That roll doesn't count. I'm rolling for this ogre attacking this PC." In a perfect world, you will be throwing out a successful attack roll for the ogre. This is part of applying the rule fairly and consistently.

This rule is not about cheating. This rule is about the DM knowing and having control over what's happening. But it also makes cheating that way impossible.

Note: this rule does not hurt any player who is rolling dice fairly. If somebody spends too much time complaining about the rule, you can be pretty sure you know why. But your defense of the rule cannot be about cheating. Over and over again, say that you are doing this so you can follow all the action. Never mention cheating when discussing this rule.

Really -- try to fix the actual problem. You cannot convince her to be honest. You can make the game honest.

[gbaji]

The funny part in this argument is that there's an assumed position, that's not being held for both sides.

"Why is not cheating sooooo important that you'd kick out a friend because of it?"

Okay, well, "why is cheating sooooo important that you'd be willing to anger all of your friends rather than stop doing it?"

I seem to recall several months ago, there was a massive thread about cheating on die rolls. I was quite suprised to find that a number of people apparently take the "they're not really hurting anyone, so why not just let them do it" position. So that is, at least, a "thing". I may not agree with that position, but it's clear that some percentage of people do, in fact, hold it. So it's not surprising that if you personally don't place much weight in the harm of cheating in a game, that you might consider the reactions of people to cheating to be the greater problem.

Again. I don't agree. But I can at least understand the chain of thought.

[False God]

No, I don't. I clearly stated that weighted dice exist.

But if she were actually rolling those numbers, she wouldn't be hiding those rolls from you. As I wrote, "If she had a die that was really rolling all those 20s, she wouldn't pick it up quickly."

There is no way to fairly turn that into "You have a lot more faith in dice manufacturers than I do." I'm saying that such dice exist, and she isn't using them.

Having played with a friend who seems to be the favored child of the gods of RNG, people with "hot dice" will leave them where they lay, because it all that much more impressive that you didn't cheat, yet the stars always align for you.

[Talakeal]

snip.

I am not saying that your other advice is bad or ignored. I absolutely read it and am considering it; I knew before I even created the thread that she wasn't taking our subtle (or not so subtle) hints.


I am just saying that I find the idea that she has perfectly balanced dice (and actually went to the trouble of confirming it) to be extremely unlikely, and was clarifying that I wasn't accusing her of using loaded dice, just suggesting the possibility that hers might be particularly poorly weighted in an attempt to "give her an out" by blaming her impossible rolls on a manufacturer's defect rather than intentional cheating.

[kyoryu]

I seem to recall several months ago, there was a massive thread about cheating on die rolls. I was quite suprised to find that a number of people apparently take the "they're not really hurting anyone, so why not just let them do it" position. So that is, at least, a "thing". I may not agree with that position, but it's clear that some percentage of people do, in fact, hold it. So it's not surprising that if you personally don't place much weight in the harm of cheating in a game, that you might consider the reactions of people to cheating to be the greater problem.

Again. I don't agree. But I can at least understand the chain of thought.

For sure.

But the fundamental issue with that is that you have to respect the opinions of others. Period. Full stop. If something is a problem for someone, then it's a problem. You don't get to say that things aren't problems for people.

If you don't think cheating is a problem, awesome! If you're playing with people that do think it is, then you have to accept they don't like it. You can talk to them about why that is, and try to persuade them, and they can do the same. But at the end of the day, if playing without cheating is a deal-breaker for you, and playing with cheating is a deal-breaker for them, then you don't play together. Continuing to cheat while claiming you're not is not okay.

[gbaji]

For sure.

But the fundamental issue with that is that you have to respect the opinions of others. Period. Full stop. If something is a problem for someone, then it's a problem. You don't get to say that things aren't problems for people.

Hah. Yeah. Although, where the problem actually lies is still a subject for examination and discovery sometimes.

If you don't think cheating is a problem, awesome! If you're playing with people that do think it is, then you have to accept they don't like it. You can talk to them about why that is, and try to persuade them, and they can do the same. But at the end of the day, if playing without cheating is a deal-breaker for you, and playing with cheating is a deal-breaker for them, then you don't play together. Continuing to cheat while claiming you're not is not okay.

If I were to pull out the therapist couch for a moment (ok. Imaginary couch, but whatever), I might surmise by the (apparently, and much to my surprise) huge gap between the number of people who "say that they are ok with others cheating at their gaming tables" versus "openly admit to others at their gaming tables that they cheat" that the folks who cheat at gaming tables know it's wrong, know that others don't like it, and don't want them to know (so they keep it hidden). Furthermore, I might surmise that most people (though perhaps not all, since I never disalow the potential for over the top altruism) who make the "I'm ok with other people cheating" claims are really just trying to rationalize away their own bad behavior. Like "If I show that I'm ok with others doing it, and can convince others to adopt the same philsophy on die cheating as well, then what I'm doing isn't really wrong".

It's kinda equivalent to someone saying "It doesn't really bother me if someone pees in the pool, and it really shouldn't bother you either". Um... What are you doing that you're not telling me? Right? I mean. Sure. This could just be someone who has knowledge of the chemical nature of urine, and its actual health risks/effects from exposure, the effect of chlorine in the water, analysis of risk factors, etc. But... uh... Yeah.

[icefractal]

The way I look at the OP, the situation is entirely the GM’s fault.

Allowing players to roll unobserved dice then self declare the outcome is an open invitation to cheating. So if a GM invites players to cheat then they cannot be surprised or disappointed when they find out that players cheat.

Very disagreed. Trusting players to handle their own rolls is something you can do when playing with reasonable people, and it makes for a better experience than needing to verify everything.

I mean, if someone held a potluck, would you say "Allowing people to bring whatever food they want and not testing it for poison is an open invitation to having them poison you?" If treating someone as a reasonable person fails, the problem is with them.

[Anonymouswizard]

The way I look at the OP, the situation is entirely the GM’s fault.

Allowing players to roll unobserved dice then self declare the outcome is an open invitation to cheating. So if a GM invites players to cheat then they cannot be surprised or disappointed when they find out that players cheat.

Hi, I have pretty serious shortsightedness that can't be reliably corrected, and at the moment I don't even have even partially effective correction. How the **** do you expect me to read the results of players when I can't reliably read dice *I* roll?

The simple fact is that a basic knowledge of probability is all you need. Humans are both bad at being random and liable to make mistakes, you can catched a suspiciously lucky streak and ask the player to switch dice/roll in the center of the table for a bit with relative ease, and for most people the occasional miscalled number probably isn't intentional. What's even more useful is your players having a basic knowledge of probability, most will realise it isn't worth it.

Although players with better knowledge of probability are better cheaters when they want to be. They're the ones testing for bias or baking dice, whereas those with less knowledge are rolling all their d20s, rerolling any that show a 1, and keeping those that show a second 1 in a way that prevents them from rolling until required.

[Talakeal]

Very disagreed. Trusting players to handle their own rolls is something you can do when playing with reasonable people, and it makes for a better experience than needing to verify everything.

I mean, if someone held a potluck, would you say "Allowing people to bring whatever food they want and not testing it for poison is an open invitation to having them poison you?" If treating someone as a reasonable person fails, the problem is with them.

I would also say it has a lot more to do with table culture than the GM.

Most groups rotate GM's, and there would be considerable pushback to one GM demanding everyone else boy to his or her whims when it comes to things like dice rolling etiquette.

[Cluedrew]

Pretty much, yeah. Conform, convince, or leave.

Not even conform, as someone who has been the odd one out, you don't even all have to be the same, you just have to not conflict with each other.

The way I look at the OP, the situation is entirely the GM’s fault.

Allowing players to roll unobserved dice then self declare the outcome is an open invitation to cheating. So if a GM invites players to cheat then they cannot be surprised or disappointed when they find out that players cheat.

This is victim blaming, to use more legal terms: The ultimate responsibility of a crime always falls with the person who commit that crime, not with the people who did not stop it.

Now negligence is also a thing so you could argue that Talakeal bares some responsibility, but I would say it is strictly less than the responsibility of the one who is actually cheating.

[Pauly]

Very disagreed. Trusting players to handle their own rolls is something you can do when playing with reasonable people, and it makes for a better experience than needing to verify everything.

I mean, if someone held a potluck, would you say "Allowing people to bring whatever food they want and not testing it for poison is an open invitation to having them poison you?" If treating someone as a reasonable person fails, the problem is with them.

On the potluck example, it is reasonable to assume home cooks don’t follow HACCP and there’s a pretty reasonable chance that food poisoning is on the cards. And that’s before you get into the realms of whether or not the dishes are even vaguely edible. Speaking as a professional chef, what I see at most pot lucks would get an insta shutdown notice from the health inspectors if they were served on a commercial premises. So yeah, a potluck is an open invitation for food poisoning.

The way to prevent food poisoning is the same as the way to prevent dice cheating. You follow simple easy to understand rules that are well known.

Getting back on point if I ever played at a table where secret dice rolls and self declared results were the norm I would assume dice fudging was accepted and going on at the table.
I’ve played competitive wargames and board games in tournaments for a long time. Self declared dice outcomes don’t fly. Unwitnessed dice rolls don’t fly. Rolling before declaring doesn’t fly. ‘Soft’ rolls where the dice aren’t properly randomized don’t fly.

Failure to follow the standard dice rolling protocols used in competitive games means that it is inevitable that sooner or later at least one player will be fudging the outcomes. Which is why it is entirely the fault of the GM who allows it to happen.

This is victim blaming, to use more legal terms: The ultimate responsibility of a crime always falls with the person who commit that crime, not with the people who did not stop it.

Now negligence is also a thing so you could argue that Talakeal bares some responsibility, but I would say it is strictly less than the responsibility of the one who is actually cheating.

Just because something bad happens doesn’t make someone a victim. To use another legal phrase Talakeal “is the author of his own misfortune”. What Talakeal did was the equivalent of leaving his car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition in the sketchiest part of town. He doesn’t bear some of the responsibility, he bears all of the respinsibility.

[Laurentio III]

First post in the thread, replying to the OP.

Had been a master for ages. How you do manage the issue is based on the person you are working with, and the rest of party. Mostly, the second one.
I've always tried to make parties of people well assorted ("tried" is the key, but still). I know that in most of them, a cheating player would have been singled out by the majority of the other players before I had reason or opportunity to act.
Still.

If the party is not aware of the issue (not the case, but follow me), you speak to the player aside. No reason to make it a show. You give them the deal: either you stop, or I make you. Your reasons are not worth poisoning the game for others and for me. ('cause, remember, the GM is a player too and deserves their share of enterteinment). Play fair, or don't play.

If the issue is known to others or the first step went unsuccessful, do the "adult talk". Explain to the party, as a whole and not to the single one, that cheating is not admitted. Never. Cheating is ruining the experience to everyone, is unfair to the effort of the GM and reduce the utility of other characters. So, "Cheating stops here. No need to elaborate further."

Now, things go nasty. Everyone knows, and cheating persist.

Assuming all other players are honest, there is no need to issue a "dice on table" rule. If everyone use and enjoy a fast-paced system, it should not be distrupted because of a single player. All warning are already out, so no need to pull your punch.

"I rolled 34 on a d20! It's double critical and sudden death!"
"Sorry lad/chad, your rolls are not accepted on this table. I'll roll it for you. You get [public roll] a 12. Enough to hit, no critical. Now I'll roll your damage. It's a 7. Good one."

Make it costantly. Deny their rolls that are not witnessed.
But, count all the one are kosher, as seen by you or trusty players. Don't mention it, don't even discuss or point out. Just accept them as you'd do for other players.
If you are confronted about denying only their rolls, just reply "I do trust him and her, but you made yourself untrustable, at the moment.". Make it clear that you don't enjoy doing it, and would gladly stop having the need to do it.

The point is not to create an humiliating enviroment, but to teach a proper playing with example.

[EggKookoo]

Just because something bad happens doesn’t make someone a victim. To use another legal phrase Talakeal “is the author of his own misfortune”. What Talakeal did was the equivalent of leaving his car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition in the sketchiest part of town. He doesn’t bear some of the responsibility, he bears all of the respinsibility.

What a bizarre philosophy...