Playing the Same Game

Before I rant, let me preface this by saying that it's not related to the current group. This is inspired by tales I've heard of another group that has problems. So don't take offense guys, I'm not talking about you.

In roleplaying, there is always the question of whether it's okay to cheat. Generally, it seems to be accepted that the players should not cheat, but the DM can cheat somewhat if he believes that this will produce a better game. In principle, I think most people would sign up to something like that. (Personally, I lean more towards a policy where neither players nor DM cheat, but that's just me.)

In d20 (particularly) there is also the question of just how much power-gaming should be going on. Should the group's Fighter have his armour class optimised to the nth degree? Should the Wizard have selected a specialism, chosen just the right feats, and taken the optimum prestige class so that no-one ever saves against his spells? (Personally, I lean towards a game where people know the rules, and use the rules to do cool things. So, I have absolutely no problem with characters with absurd AC values, despite my complaints to the contrary during the game.)

In truth, it doesn't matter who cheats, or how badly, nor does it matter how much power-gaming goes on, provided everyone is having fun. The problems really only start when a few people cheat or power-game, and the rest don't.

Basically, as far as cheating goes, I think there are two approaches to playing: either you play because you want your characters to have adventures, risking life and limb for whatever their chosen goals are, or you play because you want to watch your character do cool things. So, you have no interest in him dying, or risking the same, you want to win. So, you will make every important save, you will have a remarkably high hit point total for your level, and so forth. And, hey, if you're having fun, more power to you.

By contrast, I think people who power-game are probably in it because they're fascinated by systems, numbers, and how things work. Certainly, one of the biggest attractions for me in D&D is that the system is fairly complex, certainly complex enough to be interesting, and also fairly solid in the maths. (It's just a shame that all dice hate me.) Consequently, of course, power-gamers tend to identify the areas of their character that are important to them, and use the rules to optimise those areas. Which is entirely reasonable. And, hey, if you're having fun, more power to you.

However, big problems occur when one player cheats or power-games, and the others don't. Or even if all the players cheat and the DM doesn't want to play that way. (If all the players power-game, and the DM doesn't, there's actually not a problem - the power level just escalates. And in the arms race, the DM always wins in the end.)

The thing about cheating is that it removes the element of risk from the game. Now, as a DM, I take the view that character death (or defeat) has to be a real risk, or there's no point in playing. As a player, you might disagree. However, I am not willing to run a game where the PCs always win because, hey, they're PCs. So, if the players took the view (as a group) that they were going to cheat, I would be forced to take the view that they need a new DM.

If a single player decides to cheat, on the other hand (or just starts to look awfully like he's cheating), there's a temptation on the part of the DM to 'get' that players character. Payback. The problem there is the same as when one player power-games, so see below.

The issue with one player power-gaming is that an optimised character is probably the equivalent of the rest of the group a level or more ahead in power. If the DM wishes to continue challenging this character, he needs to throw in tougher opponents. The problem there is that encounters that challenge the power-gamer will be lethal to less optimised characters, and so either the optimised character becomes invulnerable, or the rest of the party dies. Neither of these is a particularly desirable outcome.

Ideally, the solution would be for the group to come to a consensus at the start of the campaign about how much cheating is going to go on, and about how optimised characters would be. If everyone is playing the same game, everyone should be happy. Additionally, since there's a clear policy, the group can turn to their resident power-gamer and have him reign in his characters if they become a bit too much.

The problem, of course, is that no-one really wants to admit to cheating. "I was just really lucky," becomes a common refrain, and it's very difficult to prove otherwise. Anyway, if you catch the cheat in the act, you'll just start a big fight that will tear the group apart, so what's the benefit? Ultimately, it's about trust, and some people just can't be trusted. Do you game with them, or do you let it slide?

(For the record, there was an elven necromancer in the previous adventure who cast a Feeblemind on Seebo. Roger, who was running Seebo at the time, rolled some absurdly high save. I said this wasn't enough. I was, of course, lying. Although in the end, Roger raked up another couple of points for the save, and I just couldn't keep the charade going. That's the only recent instance of me cheating that's been particularly bad, I think.)