Cheating Players

Couple of quick things: Yes, the GM runs the game, yes, he has the final say on rules questions, and yes, players cheating is deplorable.

That said, being the GM does not make it "your" game, it is the group's game. I know, the GM puts more effort into it than anybody else in many if not most cases, and yes, the GM is in charge of the "story," if there is one (as opposed to "sandbox" games), but that in no way makes the GM's fun any more important than that of anybody else sitting at the table. The GM is in charge of the rules not because he's better than the players, but simply because someone has to be. Now, it may turn out that people that GM become "better" players (whatever that is), but GMing is in no way a requirement to be a "good" player or roleplayer. In fact, I'd make the argument that GMing actually works to inhibit roleplaying to a small extent, because the GM by necessity must devote far more time to mechanics.

So, yeah, long story short, GMs aren't better just because they're GMs, don't get caught in that trap, and by the God-Emperour, gaming elitists make me sick and should you as well.

Tyraxus wrote:Couple of quick things: Yes, the GM runs the game, yes, he has the final say on rules questions, and yes, players cheating is deplorable.

That said, being the GM does not make it "your" game, it is the group's game. I know, the GM puts more effort into it than anybody else in many if not most cases, and yes, the GM is in charge of the "story," if there is one (as opposed to "sandbox" games), but that in no way makes the GM's fun any more important than that of anybody else sitting at the table. The GM is in charge of the rules not because he's better than the players, but simply because someone has to be. Now, it may turn out that people that GM become "better" players (whatever that is), but GMing is in no way a requirement to be a "good" player or roleplayer. In fact, I'd make the argument that GMing actually works to inhibit roleplaying to a small extent, because the GM by necessity must devote far more time to mechanics.

So, yeah, long story short, GMs aren't better just because they're GMs, don't get caught in that trap, and by the God-Emperour, gaming elitists make me sick and should you as well.

Hi Ty, (Oh God not this guy again

)

If the GM made the effort to create encounters and such, then technically it is his game. Same goes with buying a store-bought and running it (But enough of that). The game should be enjoyed by all the players, and from the original post, it sounds like the other players have just lapsed off to the side while the grand-standing dice fudger is running rampant. I believe it is the GM's job to run a fair game where everyone has an enjoyable evening, so as Moderator, it is his (or her) responsibility to confront the fudger and set him (or her) straight about the rules. On the plus side, I agree with you on elitist-jerk gamers who wish to expound nightly on their vast gaming prowess!

Our Wednesday group has a table rule that everyone must GM something (if only to give the other GM 's an opportunity to refresh themselves, work up some new material and be ready when it's their time in "the monkey seat")

P.S. You will note that there is 100% less flaming in this post! YOU WIN SIR!!

I'm all for the straight up approach, despite how fun some of the clever scenarios posted here may sound. Cheating at a roleplaying game is just plain sad and should honestly never be tolerated or danced around. In a fair and even tone, just point out that the cheating is really obvious and entirely unacceptable.

Then again I've been told I'm so blunt I make a sledge hammer look sharp.

It can be difficult to deal with a cheater if you are not prepared to take the direct approach - personally I've always favoured the direct Purge the Unclean or Burn the Heretic approach to dealing with them.

I don't have time for cheaters in my games. Period. For that matter I don't have room for them on my table, in my house, near my fridge or anywhere near my beer.

That said, I've seen plenty of occasions at the Gaming Centre over the years where good friends don't want to upset other good friends, so they accept that they cheat. I usually recommend that they give them their keycard and pin while they're at it too since why stop at cheating you in your game

So we've ruled out confronting the Unclean and you don't want to burn them for risk of what ever tears, frustration, back lash that might follow. I'd go with the everyone rolls for the person to their right, with rolls made onto the table where they are clearly visible to everyone - I've recommended in the Centre a few times and it's led to some amusement as friends plead with one another to roll 'well'.

We've found that's the quickest and easiest one, since it doesn't require any other mojo.

Personally I'd still drag the heretic aside and ask WTF! Let them know that you take it personally that they would cheat - since that ruins the game for everyone.

If that fails, Burn the Heretic, Kill the Mutant, Purge the Unclean... take your pick

Ash

Ashariok wrote: *snip*
I'd go with the everyone rolls for the person to their right, with rolls made onto the table where they are clearly visible to everyone - I've recommended in the Centre a few times and it's led to some amusement as friends plead with one another to roll 'well'.

We've found that's the quickest and easiest one, since it doesn't require any other mojo.

*snip*

You know I'm still very much partial to the direct honest approach but that is a hell of an idea there. Might make for some fun moments.

---

On a tangent with that idea, I've been trying to think up more subtle effects of the group's Psyker rolling a 9. I think that might be my first one. For a short time the players now have a small link to the fate of their fellow Acolytes. Perhaps even imposing small penalties or bonuses on any roll in which the rolling player is against or supportive of.

At first they might not notice it but eventually they could realize that any negativity they present (towards the ideas of their allies) can actually effect the outcome of the action itself.

For example if one player wants to kick down a locked door, and the rolling player voices that he thinks it's a terrible idea, it might impose a 5% penalty to the roll and if he fails enough, perhaps the player recieves a nasty hurt ankle for his efforts.

Hm, love this idea.

Your cheater is banking on you having no spine and letting him run roughshod over your campaign. Please for the love of the God-Emperor, grow a pair, tell him he can't play at your table if he can't play within the rules, and tell him to make his own decision. Peer pressure is no excuse. Worrying about him saying bad things about you is not an excuse. Your other players know he's cheating, they will back you up. And also, he's no friend of yours if he has no respect for you, and by cheating he's proving he has no respect for you, your game, and your other players.

You're in a tough situation here - and one just about every GM experiences at some point. I've certainly faced it on several occasions.

Here's a few considerations and ideas I have....
This is based on my own experience (which is almost always gaming with "friends" that I socialize with outside of the game and whom I like for reasons other than the fact they are in the role-playing group).

1) Consider why they feel "winning" is such an important thing to them that they'd cheat. I'm no psychologist, but maybe they are unhappy with their own lives or have low self esteem issues. If those are the case, hammering them for cheating may not be the best way to deal with this. If the other players are noticing the cheating, maybe write an adventure that really focuses on that character and that the party will rally around them. Have it go well for them and give them a solid reward at the end (not necessarily money or a weapon - more like a goal they've expressed in play, or a tight bond with an NPC they admire). Let the other players know you're doing this - because you have a friend who seems to need a hand. The goal? To show him you all care, will support him and be behind him. They may not "get it"....but then again, they might.

2) If you don't go for that touchy-feely crud, waste the sucker. If you think he's cheating ridiculously, take him out quick. Surprise attacks. Traps that hit only him. It doesn't always need to be harm - he can be pinned, separated, whatever. Remove him from the action....if that isn't getting the point across you may need to get even more forceful.

3) Fight fire with fire - If he hits all the time, they hit all the time. If he dodges all the time, they dodge all the time. If he makes all his skill roles, then have the NPCs "become uncooperative" or things break unexpectedly so it doesn't work out anyway. After a while of feeling utterly futile, he might get the point. If you play fair, we all will. If you don't, every opponent of yours will also be as miraculously successfully. Nature seeks a balance.

4) For some reason they are seeing the game as "competetive". Try running a few more "cooperative" type scenarios where thinking and reasoning determine victory more than the dice.

5) Sit at a dining table and have everyone roll where everyone else can clearly see. If this isn't practical, run the more climactic encounters that way. You may even say "this is such a critical combat, all rolls - even mine - are going to be right here. Let the fates fall as they may...."

A few thoughts from a gamesmaster who's been doing this for more years than I'd care to admit...

When I run a game, among the first things I do is insert a needed NPC into the group. The NPC (in NO way considered 'my character', I've heard that from a million game masters and all it ends up doing is stealing the show) takes action as directed, but is a direct link to the roleplay aspect of the game. Players getting a bit triggerhappy? The NPC notices, and she likely has something to say about it. Moral quandaries? She has an opinion. And yes, she notices when someone becomes...'too good'. Its amazing, in my experience, what a roleplayed conversation about a person's 'incredible luck' can do...especially when the player will get thrust forward into situations not of their own creation because of it.

"I'm not afraid of you 5, my friend here will take ALL of you! You'd best make things right with the God-Emperor, cuz Joe never misses!" or perhaps the more dangerous comment to an Ecclesiarch, "Im not too concerned about Daemons appearing, the way Joe shoots I think he's got more fate backing than they do..."

You wanted the reputation, Gunslinger, well...now you've got it...

Sigismund Cale wrote:Hi Ty, (Oh God not this guy again )

If the GM made the effort to create encounters and such, then technically it is his game. Same goes with buying a store-bought and running it (But enough of that). The game should be enjoyed by all the players, and from the original post, it sounds like the other players have just lapsed off to the side while the grand-standing dice fudger is running rampant. I believe it is the GM's job to run a fair game where everyone has an enjoyable evening, so as Moderator, it is his (or her) responsibility to confront the fudger and set him (or her) straight about the rules. On the plus side, I agree with you on elitist-jerk gamers who wish to expound nightly on their vast gaming prowess!

Our Wednesday group has a table rule that everyone must GM something (if only to give the other GM 's an opportunity to refresh themselves, work up some new material and be ready when it's their time in "the monkey seat")

P.S. You will note that there is 100% less flaming in this post! YOU WIN SIR!!

Hi. Good to see you again. (As a note, I actually quite enjoyed the last discussion, but then I took philosophy in college because I like to argue

)

Sorry, my post was kinda off-topic. I fully agree that the players and GM should confront the cheater, and that the GM is responsible for enforcing the "fairness" of the game via the rules. My post was more of a response to the trend in this thread towards "The only good players are the ones that either kowtow to the GM's whim or GM themselves." No one out and out said it, but I've seen the same chain in other gaming discussions, and I wanted to preempt it. It seems that all too often, players need an advocate against GMs, people that are supposed to be friends.

I will agree that GMing games makes you more aware of the work that the GM puts into the game, and that might make you more respectful of following his story. But like I say, I run more sandbox-type games, because I don't believe that it's the GM's place to tell the players "You can't/wouldn't do that," unless it's obviously out of character metagaming. In other words, just because I put together a hive adventure doesn't mean that the acolytes can't book passage to the feral world. They just need to be aware that they're entering uncharted territory and things won't be as polished as they would be otherwise (that I'm going to have to make stuff up as they go along for the rest of the session). And those that have GMed recognize that they've done something I didn't expect, and are usually willing to cut me the necessary slack.

As far as it's technically the GM's game... it's technically his story or his world, but it's the group's game. It's semantics/splitting hairs, yes, but it's an important distinction, in my mind anyway.

Anyways, back to your regularly scheduled discussion. Sorry for the derailment.

For someone like us ( Gm's ) its hard to tell you what to really do, it is your game and we can only give advice on how we would handle it.
Ive had the same problem as you ive been a DM of Ars Magica for over 12 years now. Ive had people cheat alot and most of them i considered freinds too.

Through trial and error i started to ignore it, then tried to just kill off there characters or harm them to they got the point, and finally i confronted them.
Though i knew it wasnt going to end good, which it didnt, my now ex freind defended himself claiming he didnt cheat.
Was my word against him, caused all sorts of problems in that time, and finally sorted itself out when he left in anger claiming i was victomising him.
I felt bad but realised that in the endyou cant let it go on, it brings your game down, upsets your players, and most importantly for you.. it makes you feel like its your fault that your not being a great DM.

So for what its worth i know what you go through.
Its best in the end to face the person, give them the choice to play fair and clean like everyone else or find another game somewhere else.

I hope it works out for you.

Make his dice rolls mean..... nothing.

His big hits do.... nothing.

Just roll madly behind the screens and declare that there was not effect (or small scratches).

I.e. Cheat Right Back. Because cheaters are breaking the social contract implied when you play the game - that you'll follow the rules. If you can't follow the rules then why play the game.

Otherwise if you don't like doing that...

New Table Rule: if you touch the dice before I see it, it doesn't count. If you roll where no-one can see it, it doesn't count. And that holds for everyone including the GM.

vinterdraken, you need a bigger commissarial cap.

As the GM, your authority is absolute. You do not only have final say, but also first say, and all say in between. You do not owe your players anything, they have no inalienable rights in relation to you. Theirs is solely the choice whether they want to play in your group or not, a choice you can take away from them at any time should you get fed up with them.

I have prohibited players from playing certain characters because I have felt that the character concept in question would be detrimental to the campaign. I have dealt XP penalties on the fly when a player didn't behave (not as in bad roleplaying, but as in inappropriate behaviour from the player). I have changed the rules on the fly when a player has tried to exploit a loophole, giving no compensation to the prospective powergamer who found himself to have bought a pig in a sack with the unexpected new rules. I have even prohibited characters from doing certain things in the game, when I have felt it to both be detrimental to the campaign and at odds with the established personality of the character.

And yet my players love my GMing. Be stern but fair, there is no other proper way to run a campaign. Even a particular one of my players, one who used to be a troublesome case in the past, has come to agree with me on that.

Now, as for the actual problems at hand,

If you can't catch him red-handed and prove that he cheats, shift the burden of proof! Revoke the assumption of innocence, state clearly that any claim by him is null and void unless provable. Dice rolls will have to be visible to all, or count as invalid. If he has a suspicious amount of cash on his character, request him to account where he got every single throne!

As for rules-lawyering, do not let him or anyone else get the idea that the rules are a contract between the GM and the players. The rules are only in force because the GM says so; and if he says something different, then they aren't. If the rulebook is the law; the GM is the judge, the jury, the supreme court and the legislative body.

As for his character using information which only he as a player has but the character wouldn't (known as "information metagaming"), just plain out forbid him to act on that information! Yeah, that's right, you're the GM - your players need your approval simply to be allowed to play their own characters. If he acts on information his character doesn't have, just say "No, you don't!", and accept no rationalizations for why the character still would do that.

As the GM, your authority is absolute.

It's only absolute so long as the players are happy. GMs can fall faster than banana republics. Try that crap with some groups and you'd be out on your ass regardless of being a 'great GM' or not. The social group comes first, and if you're an ass - as such "my way or the highway" style often announces - you may find yourself on the highway before you know it.

No, it is absolute regardless of anything. If the players are not happy, they leave, simple as that. It's they who leave, not the GM who gets kicked out. For practical intents and purposes, it is the GM who owns the campaign.

I'm not worried about players leaving my group due to disagreement about my GMing style. If there is irreconcilable difference, I fully expect them to get out to save me the trouble of throwing them out on their ears.

No, it is absolute regardless of anything. It's they who leave, not the GM who gets kicked out.

I've seen it done both ways. I've kicked a GM out of a game an the campaign went on and was better for it. This one contrary defeats your absolute statement.

Hot Hands wrote:

No, it is absolute regardless of anything. It's they who leave, not the GM who gets kicked out.

I've seen it done both ways. I've kicked a GM out of a game an the campaign went on and was better for it. This one contrary defeats your absolute statement.

He's right. You're wrong. There, all better now?

Fine. Sure. Whatever you say. I really don't want to get in a pointless argument or to start bashing on anyone, so I'll let it rest. Back to the fun now...

stoffe wrote:Rule 1 : GM is NEVER wrong.
Rule 2 : If GM IS wrong see Rule 1.

In other words... Use the 10 Commandments...

Ten Commandments of the Sadistic DM

The Ten Commandments of the sadistic DM (is there really another kind?) are undeniable (should anyone deny them, refer to number 6) and holy truths that every DM should instill (or force) into their players so that the role-playing experience may be enhanced and become more enjoyable to the game’s most important person – the DM. (Should ANY player think otherwise, refer to number 6).

I – Thy players shall have no other DMs before thee. (Should they defy you, refer to number 6)

II – Thy players shall make for themselves a carved image in the likeness of the DM and they shall bow down to him and serve him. (If they refuse, refer to number 6)

III – Thy players shall not take the name of the Lord the DM in vain. (If they refuse, refer to number 6)

IV – Remember the Role-playing Day, and keep it holy. (Otherwise, refer to number 6)

V – Thy Players shall honor the official playing rules, thou shall not honor them, for ye shall twist them in thy favor. (If thy players refuse or complain, or if ye believe they are even Thinking of it, refer to number 6)

VI – Thou shalt kill thy player’s characters whenever they question thy judgement. (And if the monster is defeated, refer to number 5)

VII – Thou shalt forget any and all information that might give the player’s characters an opportunity. (And should they complain, refer to number 6)

VIII – Thou shalt steal thy player’s character’s favorite magic items whenever you feel they have an advantage over thy monsters. (Should they be smart or lucky, refer to number 5, and if still you fail, refer to number 6)

IX – Thy Non-Player Characters shall not bear false witness against your player characters, unless it suits thy needs. (Such needs shall always pertain to number 6)

X – Thy players shall not covet the DM’s dice (loaded is holy), they shall not covet the DM’s position, nor anything that is the DM’s. (Should they covet thy blood in vengeance for what they believe is abusing your power, refer to number 911)

Finally… any confrontation or complaint (real or imagined) that is not covered by these ten holy principles shall be dealt with… well, by referring to number 6.

There is a distinct difference between being a sadistic GM and a disciplinarian GM. The former is being mean towards the players for the fun of it. The latter is utterly intolerant of BS, but good (and even occasionally pragmatic) towards those who play in a fair and contributive way. I do not recognize myself in any of those ten commandments.

Well, most of us GM differently. Some are tyrants, some are mediators, some desperately want to please. I'm an entertainer. The game universe and plots are mine, not the players', because if I'm not interested they won't be either. The rules are shared ground. I learn them well but leave it up to the players to truly master them. I don't need to. Nothing stops me from throwing a daemonhost and 1d100 plaguebearers at them if the story warrants it, and their twohanded melee/lightning attack/blademaster/ambidextrousness won't save them from that - but acting the part of cultists might. Roleplay is why we're there in the first place, so I put more emphasis on making the effects of "disadvantegous" IC actions more rewarding than mere dice rolling. Still, I'm into roleplaying games for a reason - I want to work within a fair and balanced framework, with as little fudging of results as possible. The element of chance from die rolling keeps us awake at the gaming table and makes for surprising developments, both for me and my players. Some borderline munchkinism among them is okay - improving the character is a basic ambition for most players and it encourages dedication and planning. If they start rules lawyering... then we have a problem.

My "job" is to make them want to do the entertaining thing. I'm not there to please myself any less than them, and the other way around. Character weaknesses are interesting, an opportunity for roleplay. Talents and gear are primarily tools for storytelling.

If it doesn't work out, we have a talk about it, and if that fails it's time to consider closing the whole thing down and continue with something else. The key to a great campaign often lies in group composition, as I believe player chemistry defines the limits of what can be done with a particular story and setting.

There is a distinct difference between being a sadistic GM and a disciplinarian GM. The former is being mean towards the players for the fun of it. The latter is utterly intolerant of BS, but good (and even occasionally pragmatic) towards those who play in a fair and contributive way. I do not recognize myself in any of those ten commandments.

I agree, and also do not know any GM like that. I simply posted them as a humorous anecdote.

But one thing about them does hold true to some extent... The GM is God of his campaign. He can change the rules as he sees fit, in order to make the experience more enjoyable/dramatic/interesting/etc for his players. And the players should know this, and refrain from trying to rules-lawyer the GM. Discussing a rule is one thing... Argueing after the GM has made the decision is another.

Changing the rules in a one-time situation or something for dramatic effect or game world consistency is one thing (upping a called shot difficulty because a particular monster's body part is smaller than human standard, for example, or upping falling damage for high gravity) ... but looking up and telling a player that he's wasted the last thousand or so exp because you're changing how the rules work on that particular combo from now on is something completely different.

Basically, yeah, the GM can change the rules. But since the rules are the only things the players can know for semi-certain about the world, a good GM should give players plenty of notice whenever possible. After all, how would you feel if you were a soldier and suddenly gunpowder doesn't burn, or a HALO jumper and gravity suddenly isn't -9.8 m/s2?

Kill their characters one step after they cheat.

Simple.

Cheating never gave anyone a good time.

If they continue to cheat... Well, kill them again.

The agony of making a new character will soon make them realise the error of their ways.

Kill, kill, kill!!!!

To cheat is to die in my games. That is why the rules cater for fate points. If they don't want to play by the rules, then they don't want to have fun. They want to win, at any cost. Well that cost is their life.

As a game master it is your responsibility to equalise the experience of fun. If that is not maintained then you are being too soft. 40k is not soft. It has no tolerence.

HAVE NO TOLERENCE!!!!!!

mad eagle, marry me!

Point worth mentioning, you wouldn't even have to kill their character in-game.

*cheating dude is caught cheating*
GM: Dude, you lose one fate point permanently.
Cheating dude: Huh?
GM: You lose one fate point permanently.
Cheating dude: Huh? Why? Did I die?
GM: No.
Cheating dude: Then how come I lose a fate point?
GM: Because I say so, and I'm the GM, and I don't like cheating.