Audacious Cheating

[Segev]

Maybe it was both! Cheating and cheating! Drama!!!

Doubtful; the claim was that the DM's wife was paranoid, not that she had reason to be. And if the prior DM had been the sort to validate the wife's alleged paranoia, I'm sure the player in question would be adding in how she felt creeped out by said DM perving at/hitting on her. Conversely, if the wife's alleged paranoia was justified due to the player-in-question's own behavior re: flirting with DMs, I suspect Talakeal would find himself being flirted with, what with that (i.e. "flirting with the GM") being a tactic a player could theoretically use to also gain advantage in the game.



As to Talakeal's problem, I think you could tone back the "get up and walk around, checking everyone's dice" thing to instead ask that the dice be rolled in the middle of the table (where "middle" just means "out beyond your own little play area, where your neighbors can see the result") and ask everyone to confirm each other's dice out loud. No picking up the dice until the DM acknowledges he has the relevant numbers recorded.

Frankly, my group of friends will, if they get a number they feel is good, call for confirmation from the other players or the DM, because while we have such a high trust game that our one remote player rolls real dice without a camera on him and we take his word for it, we like showing off our good rolls and also preserving that high trust as much as possible.

I might toss dice around in my personal play area, but when it's time to actually roll something the DM has called for (and thus will count for something), I roll out into the middle of the table and leave the dice there for people to see. I might move them to get them arranged more easily, but I've also just asked the people across the table from me what they said in my eagerness to know before they could pass them to me.

I think, Talakeal, encouraging an environment and table culture of being excited for everyone to see everyone's rolls as much as possible will do a lot to engender high trust. It makes it about the excitement of seeing the good results (and the shared groaning at bad ones), rather than about "not trusting" each other, and it still promotes trust because calling out fraudulent results is a lot harder when many people see the dice. Importantly, this also reduces the need for "everyone" or even the DM to see the dice; the point is that enough people see them that no lone cheater can claim people are being mean for questioning his reported numbers.

[Vahnavoi]

I have been in a lot of games over the years, some bad, some good. I can say that almost without exception, the more relaxed and trusting the environment the better the game.

And I have been on a lot of car trips and can say that usually not wearing a seatbelt is more comfortable than wearing it - which is why people don't wear seatbelts, leading to avoidable damages.

Up thread someone (you?) mentioned the "author of your own misfortune" legal doctrine. I looked it up, and the examples were explicitly about injuries suffered in an accident when not wearing seat belts or other PPE, and then assigning percentages of settlements based on the amount of blame each party bore. So, legally at least, this is absolutely not how it works.

Being author of your own misfortune is also common saying meaning, well, things like not wearing a seatbelt because you don't find it comfortable. There is also a high chance you're looking at the wrong place. Because, as noted, responsibility and blame are not the same thing.

The first thing you should look up is whether you are subject to a fine for not wearing a seatbelt, even if nothing has happened. The second thing you should look up is insurance terms.

Because there is a good chance not wearing a seatbelt is punishable as a strict liability crime, as in, it's punishable simply as a matter of being irresponsible and undesired behaviour, and voids any insurance. Meaning, whatever percentage of blame you get saddled with and no matter what fraction of settlements you have to pay, you are fully responsible for paying your whole settlement, with no help from your insurance.

This isn't universal, strict liability is not even a thing in all jurisdictions, as in, merely being irresponsible is not usually a crime. You might not be guilty of anything despite being irresponsible.

You still have to change the way you act if you want things to change. Having to pay 50% of a settlement does not mean you should only put on your seatbelt 50% of the time. It does not mean it was 50% responsible decision to not wear a seatbelt. It was 100% irresponsible even before anything happened.

[Segev]

And I have been on a lot of car trips and can say that usually not wearing a seatbelt is more comfortable than wearing it - which is why people don't wear seatbelts, leading to avoidable damages.

What, really? I don't even notice I'm wearing a seatbelt most of the time when driving.

[Talakeal]

And I have been on a lot of car trips and can say that usually not wearing a seatbelt is more comfortable than wearing it - which is why people don't wear seatbelts, leading to avoidable damages.

Correct. But driving is a utilitarian activity with lethal consequences. Gaming is a recreational activity with only minor social consequences.

Also, I am probably not the most receptive audience for this analogy as I almost always choose comfort over safety.

[Batcathat]

Maybe this has already been asked and answered without me noticing, but... assuming you find a way to completely stop this kind of cheating consistently without becoming impractical or upsetting the group in any way, do you want to keep the player in question?

Because it seems to me that someone who'd consistently cheat like this would probably just find another way to do so and even if they can't or won't, other people might still enjoy the game less being paranoid about what she might do.

[Talakeal]

Maybe this has already been asked and answered without me noticing, but... assuming you find a way to completely stop this kind of cheating consistently without becoming impractical or upsetting the group in any way, do you want to keep the player in question?

Because it seems to me that someone who'd consistently cheat like this would probably just find another way to do so and even if they can't or won't, other people might still enjoy the game less being paranoid about what she might do.

On the fence.

She is really enthusiastic about the game; she always shows up and never cancels, she pays attention, she reads the rules and setting materials, etc. Its very refreshing.

On the other hand, she is a cheater, and makes wacky attention seeking characters.

[Cygnia]

Have you asked the rest of the group if they want her around?

[Talakeal]

Have you asked the rest of the group if they want her around?

Yes. Their response is pretty much "Cheating bugs them, but they can tune it out. They will abide by my decision either way, but won't actually do anything to back me up or talk to her about it".

[KorvinStarmast]

I know it's less fun than rolling dice, but it does solve the difficulty of having to get up and walk around as people roll one by one.

I side with Vanahvoi as regards "get up and roll them where I can see them" isn't a big ask. It's trivial.

Minimum standard is
- Dice rolled after they are called for.
- Must be rolled in the designated dice rolling area
- only flat dice that stay in the designated area count
- Must be witnessed by at least one other person at the table. [NB edit for for clarity I’m not saying another person must actually read the dice, but that if they wanted to they could do so]
- Dice are not picked up until after the action is adjudicated and finished.
This is what happens in every other game that uses dice. It is no inconvenience.

That is my experience also.

Any time you make something that could be trivial non-trivial by your own choices, the responsibility for the consequence falls on you. Even if you manage to justify your choices and prove you are, in a sense, right, you are still fully responsibility for the situation.

We get to the heart of the matter. Now hold that thought...

Talakeal says he wants to play in a high trust environment. But how do you build trust? This minor inconvenience of getting to a table to roll a die where other people can see it is a way a player visibly shows to every other player their commitment to and co-operation with game rules. It's the minimal effort for minimum guarantee of fairness

It's a two way street. Everyone at the table has a stake in a fair game.

Wouldn't booting her out also just be punting the problem to the next GM?

You know, she joined our group because she got kicked out of her last group. She said it was because the GM's wife was paranoid about him hanging out with other women, but I have to wonder if the truth didn't have more to do with her cheating.

Let's see, she got thrown out of another group and you all took the plunge, eyes open, and let her into yours. OK, each group has its own risk assessments. Good for you all, as a table, to give her another chance.

Maybe it was both! Cheating and cheating! Drama!!!

Laughed I did.

Also, I am probably not the most receptive audience for this analogy as I almost always choose comfort over safety.

And I won't forget to put roses on your grave. (Two quataloos for whomever gets that lyric reference without looking it up).

She is really enthusiastic about the game; she always shows up and never cancels, she pays attention, she reads the rules and setting materials, etc. Its very refreshing.

On the other hand, she is a cheater, and makes wacky attention seeking characters.

OK, there's a "weighing in the balance" issue here, so how about the rest of your group? (As I asked you in my initial response, pages ago before percentages of blame side tracked the conversation ...)

Their response is pretty much "Cheating bugs them, but they can tune it out. They will abide by my decision either way, but won't actually do anything to back me up or talk to her about it".

You have just answered your own question.
You haven't booted her yet, and the rest of the group can put up with it.

My recommendation to you is this: quit complaining and go play.

[Batcathat]

You have just answered your own question.
You haven't booted her yet, and the rest of the group can put up with it.

My recommendation to you is this: quit complaining and go play.

People can put up with quite a lot if they feel like they have to, that doesn't mean that allowing it is the best idea. I'm not sure what should be done, but I'd recommend that it's something other than having everyone else put up with something that bugs them.

[False God]

Doubtful; the claim was that the DM's wife was paranoid, not that she had reason to be. And if the prior DM had been the sort to validate the wife's alleged paranoia, I'm sure the player in question would be adding in how she felt creeped out by said DM perving at/hitting on her. Conversely, if the wife's alleged paranoia was justified due to the player-in-question's own behavior re: flirting with DMs, I suspect Talakeal would find himself being flirted with, what with that (i.e. "flirting with the GM") being a tactic a player could theoretically use to also gain advantage in the game.

I really think you're missing that my comment was supposed to be taken humorously.
Although I'm not sure the forum has a color capable of conveying that...

[gbaji]

To be fair, blame, responsibility, and fault all have distinct meanings and I have been using them more or less interchangeably.

Yeah. And I tend to use them interchangeably as well (heck. Had a hard time not doing so when writing some of the previous posts). I do find that a good rule of thumb is that when someone says something that you think is totally wrong, absurd, ofensive, whatever, instead of assuming the intended meaning is what you interpreted it to be, ask the person what they actually meant. There are lots of common words and phrases that we use that can have varying meanings, which may change things quite a bit. The person writing may have had one meaning in mind, but you read it with a different meaning. Then disagreement sparks.

Asking "when you said <quote>, did you mean <longer definition/description> or <different long definition/description> or <maybe more>? Get clarification. I've found that a really high percentage of disagreements (especially online) actually revolve around different interpretations of the words being used, and not so much differnces in actual opinion on something. Just think of how many times you've seen folks argue back and forth only for the resolution to be "oh. I thought you meant X, when you said Y, and not Z", and then they find some middle ground. Happens a lot (although that does not discount actual differences of opinion on things, of course)

And sometimes, like in this case, it's a matter of perspective and how you actually apply different concepts in "real life". Again, I don't think a single person meant to imply that a person who cheats on their dice is not to blame for their cheating. But we got there anyway, right? And yeah, sometimes it's just a different way of looking at a concept like "responsiblity". Some may thing "this one person is responsible". But others may view it as "we are all responsible, just for differnt specific things".

On of my current guilty pleasures on TV is a show called Air Disasters. Basically, they examine various air related accidents including a lot of investigation as to what exactly happened (which I find fascinating). One of the common themes that is brought up in this show is that accidents never have just one cause. It's always a series of actions/events, often taken by or involving different people, that lead to a disaster. And simply trying to point the finger of "blame" at one person/thing isn't terribly useful or helpful. The better solution is to find out how to change the way each of those involved components/people behave so as to prevent the same thing happening again.

Placing blame is rarely actually a useful thing. Finding each and every "contributing factor", and making changes.... is. And I find the same sort of approach may work well for this cheating situation as well. Confronting the one player and accusing her of cheating isn't going to accomplish much (in the same way that finding and blaming one maintenance guy for failing to do their job correctly and causing a plane crash isn't). But changing the proceedures being used from ones in which cheating is easy to one where cheating is hard will tend to work well at preventing the same thing from happening in the future.

[Talakeal]

Asking "when you said <quote>, did you mean <longer definition/description> or <different long definition/description> or <maybe more>? Get clarification. I've found that a really high percentage of disagreements (especially online) actually revolve around different interpretations of the words being used, and not so much differnces in actual opinion on something. Just think of how many times you've seen folks argue back and forth only for the resolution to be "oh. I thought you meant X, when you said Y, and not Z", and then they find some middle ground. Happens a lot (although that does not discount actual differences of opinion on things, of course)

In my experience asking someone what they meant to say is usually just taken as an attempt to strawman their position.

And sometimes, like in this case, it's a matter of perspective and how you actually apply different concepts in "real life". Again, I don't think a single person meant to imply that a person who cheats on their dice is not to blame for their cheating. But we got there anyway, right? And yeah, sometimes it's just a different way of looking at a concept like "responsiblity". Some may thing "this one person is responsible". But others may view it as "we are all responsible, just for different specific things".

I have talked and heard interviews with to a fair number of con-artists who say what they are doing isn't morally wrong because it's the victim's fault for falling for it. I imagine a lot of dice cheaters justify it the same way. Real life is full of victim blaming, so I don't think it's that off base an assumption.

[Segev]

In my experience asking someone what they meant to say is usually just taken as an attempt to strawman their position.

Which is always confusing; if I wanted to strawman them, I'd just assume they said what I wanted them to, rather than asking them if I understand what they're saying correctly.

[animorte]

Which is always confusing; if I wanted to strawman them, I'd just assume they said what I wanted them to, rather than asking them if I understand what they're saying correctly.

Segev has a quote in my signature for a reason, always attempting to maintain the quality of accurate communication.

[The Glyphstone]

Yes. Their response is pretty much "Cheating bugs them, but they can tune it out. They will abide by my decision either way, but won't actually do anything to back me up or talk to her about it".

And I'm sure if you don't do anything about it they will find a way to blame you anyways.

[Kish]

So... What's the real problem, then? Why is everybody handling this one player as a problem, when the rest of the table only has handles so they can fly off of them?

Yes, this.

At any other table I'd say "confront her or somehow make her stop." At Talakeal's table, I'm inclined to suggest ignoring her and telling any other player who asks about it, "Her cheating is [nth] on my list of problems," where n equals your total number of players. Pointedly.

[Pauly]

To be fair, blame, responsibility, and fault all have distinct meanings and I have been using them more or less interchangeably.

Not just that but also jargon means some people will use a word in a tightly defined way and others use it in its more broad meaning. That also can lead to confusion as to what each person actually meant.

[gbaji]

Which is always confusing; if I wanted to strawman them, I'd just assume they said what I wanted them to, rather than asking them if I understand what they're saying correctly.

Yeah. I don't get that either.

If I say "I like horse", the strawman response would be "OMG! How could you? What kind of monster likes the taste of horse meat? That's disgusting. Those poor innocent animals...", followed up by ignoring any attempt to clarify on my part, and insisting that I must defend my position on eating horses or admit to being "wrong" somehow.

The non strawman response (assuming you legitimately think the person is saying they like horses "to eat"), is to ask "Um... did you mean you like horses like as living animals, as a pet, or to ride maybe? Or did you mean you like the taste of horse meat?". Then, you allow the other person to clarify what they meant. And then you have a conversation about that actual meaning instead of a potential misunderstanding. You might realize that they just left off the "s" at the end, and that made the meaning seem very different than intended.

So yeah. I'm not seeing how that process can increase the likelihood of a strawman being employed. Now it can force people to stop and think about their own positions, express them clearly, and subject them to "real" counters. But that's not a strawman process. That's just legitimate argument/conversation.

[KorvinStarmast]

People can put up with quite a lot if they feel like they have to, that doesn't mean that allowing it is the best idea. I'm not sure what should be done, but I'd recommend that it's something other than having everyone else put up with something that bugs them.

If it bugs the GM that much, then the alternate recommendation is

"quit complaining and ask the players who is GMing the next game since you are fed up with having to put up with their issues"

but I do not see this GM doing that.

And here's the thing: I have seen a couple of DM/GMs do just that.

"I don't need to put up with this {insert issue/issues here} in my free time. This game/campaign is done, who is the next DM and what is the next game/campaign?"

The reason it worked is that they stuck to their guns and took a break from the GM/DM role.

[Batcathat]

If it bugs the GM that much, then the alternate recommendation is

"quit complaining and ask the players who is GMing the next game since you are fed up with having to put up with their issues"

but I do not see this GM doing that.

And here's the thing: I have seen a couple of DM/GMs do just that.

"I don't need to put up with this {insert issue/issues here} in my free time. This game/campaign is done, who is the next DM and what is the next game/campaign?"

The reason it worked is that they stuck to their guns and took a break from the GM/DM role.

Sure, that's a solid option in both this case and other issues Talakeal has had. But my point was that in this case it's not even the wants of the players versus the wants of the GM, it's the wants of a single player versus the wants of the GM and all the other players. So doing nothing means the experience will be worse for everyone but the player who's breaking the rules, which seems like a poor outcome.

[Cygnia]

So doing nothing means the experience will be worse for everyone but the player who's breaking the rules, which seems like a poor outcome.

Pretty much. Everyone else in this group seems so intent in not making waves or being the 'bad guy' in enforcing Actions Have Consequences that they'll do nothing but seethe on the sidelines rather than actually confront the problem in a meaningful way.

Geek Social Fallacy #1 all over again...

[EggKookoo]

Pretty much. Everyone else in this group seems so intent in not making waves or being the 'bad guy' in enforcing Actions Have Consequences that they'll do nothing but seethe on the sidelines rather than actually confront the problem in a meaningful way.

Geek Social Fallacy #1 all over again...

Maybe. Don't mistake gradual escalation for a desire to avoid escalation entirely. If I suspect a player is cheating, I might decide to go with a less-confrontational solution first (e.g. insisting everyone use dice towers), before bringing down the hammer.

In general, if you can get a person to self-correct, that correction will last longer. At least IME.

[Batcathat]

Pretty much. Everyone else in this group seems so intent in not making waves or being the 'bad guy' in enforcing Actions Have Consequences that they'll do nothing but seethe on the sidelines rather than actually confront the problem in a meaningful way.

Geek Social Fallacy #1 all over again...

Which is kind of odd, considering Talakeal's problems are usually about players having complete meltdowns every fifteen minutes and accusing someone as soon as anything doesn't go their way.

So... progress? Maybe?

[Wintermoot]

Which is kind of odd, considering Talakeal's problems are usually about players having complete meltdowns every fifteen minutes and accusing someone as soon as anything doesn't go their way.

So... progress? Maybe?

Maybe because it's a girl and girls are scary?

[Durzan]

If you truly need to change the player, don't talk to her about her "cheating." Talk to her about how failures create three-dimensional characters, how success feels more rewarding when there is a chance of failure.

Then, have a session where her rolls don't matter. If her character wants to leap over a river, she succeeds. If she wants to do a called-shot to throw a dagger into the orc's Achilles tendon, she succeeds. Don't ask for rolls, just as for intent and give results. It won't actually impact the game (because she's saying she succeeds, anyway), but without the stress of lying and trying to hide, maybe she'll realize how little fun it is for the other players, since she'll most likely not have fun, either.

Burley's post from back on page two really got me thinking, but I think this part provides an interesting possible solution. Has anyone tried something similar? Was it effective?

[Xervous]

Burley's post from back on page two really got me thinking, but I think this part provides an interesting possible solution. Has anyone tried something similar? Was it effective?

Biggest flaw I see in it is the assumptions of universal feelings and opinions. It presents some concepts as universal Goods and then seeks to work towards those concepts. It never stops to ask about desires and expectations. It’s not a conversation, it’s an infantilizing trip to the principal’s office for re-education.

[gbaji]

Biggest flaw I see in it is the assumptions of universal feelings and opinions. It presents some concepts as universal Goods and then seeks to work towards those concepts. It never stops to ask about desires and expectations. It’s not a conversation, it’s an infantilizing trip to the principal’s office for re-education.

And it also falls into the "singling one player out and accusing them" category. Which I find rarely actually works out well, or accomplishes anything other than creating more conflict.

You either accept that some players will cheat in your game, and some players may even cheat "a lot" in your game, and just move on. Or you change the die rolling proceedures for the entire table, so as to reduce/eliminate cheating. I really doubt that anythinng else (short of tossing the one player) will work.

[AvatarVecna]

Gotta be honest, I assume most players cheat at least a little, but I don't tend to mind. DMing is about delivering an experience IMO - if I feel the players are rolling too poorly or too well, I tend to adjust the experience a bit anyway, which would be "cheating" if I wasn't DM and therefore a higher authority than the books. Slightly more HP here, maybe a change in tactics to avoid killing an unlucky PC, pretending I didn't roll that crit behind the screen, pretending they've got an ability to counter a common tactic that would shut down the whole encounter I should've thought of but didn't because I'm an idiot...little things to make the encounters more fun and less of a stomp one way or the other, unless a stomp is what I'm going for. If players are fudging their rolls a bit, maybe hitting a bit more often than expected, I don't feel the strongest urge to call them out on it. What matters is that the players compare to the monsters as they should, and compare to each other as they should.

But if a player is being blatant about cheating? I got bad news buddy boy: I'm afraid of direct confrontation and am waaaaaaaaay more toxic than you are. Ohhhhhhh I'm so sorry, this enemy is actually blessed by the god of fair play and his AC is 10 points higher against extremely lucky people, how unfortunate.

[Lord Torath]

Talakeal, care to give us an update on the cheating situation? It's not really any of my business, but I am curious how things worked out.