244 réponses à ce sujet

[WebShaman]

Elhanan wrote...

@ Web - The glitch I see in your objective problem review is that the DM in a solo game is not infallable. I contend that one may cheat themselves out of a better game, ruin play, and spoil the experience; not just break technical aspects.

I guess the difference in our positions is that while you contend for a completely objective def of cheating as breaking the rules, I also included (see early in thread) the def of spoilage as cheating; as it violates the intent of the rules which is to enjoy the game. This is the heart of the Law. And the Law is (or should be) both motive and method, IMO.

Bolds are mine.

This is really the crux of your argument, as I see it.

Now, the reality here is that one may consider another to be cheated out of a better game, or that the play was ruined, experiences spoiled, etc.  And from that perspective, since it is one that is subjective (not objective here), one would be right - from the personal perspective, that person has suffered such a calamity due to their playing style as compared to ones own game experiences, play, etc.

But this does not make it true for that Player. 

The Player in question may see this differently, of course.  Which is why it is a subjective perspective - the same thing can be viewed differently, dependingly.

Many things could contribute to someone feeling "cheated out" of a gaming experience, etc.  Not just changing their own playing rules.  Feeling "cheated out" is not the same, however, of breaking the rules here.

And that is the simple fact here.  No rules are being broken.  Thus, no cheating is occuring.  What one feels, or doesn't, is not relevant to the logical argument and conclusion.

This is why I included that others may find a particular playstyle to be "cheesy" - subjective, to be sure.  But as long as no others are being affected by it, what relevance does it truly have?

I think we might need a further bit of enlightenment here.

Say we have a group.  This is a closed group.  Only they are involved.  They decide on a set of rules.  Somewhen afterwards, one or more of the group (but not the entire group) decide they do not like the set of rules originally decided upon.  They wish to change them, or at least not abide by them.  To change the rules will require the group to decide upon it, and the changes may or may not be implemented, as the case may be.  In the latter case, cheating may possibly be the outcome (not abiding by previously decided upon and accepted rules, and these rules have not been altered to accommate this by the group).

Now let us reduce the group to the one here.  The one decides on a set of rules.  Somewhen afterwards, the one decides that she does no like the set of rules originally decide upon.    She wishes to change them, or at least not abide by them.  Changing the rules here does NOT require a decision to be made, since the person requesting the change also validates it.  It is very difficult to imagine someone denying themselves such a rule change, and then doing it anyway.  That would be borderline schizophrenic.  The fact is, that someone who "gives in" to temptation is in fact allowing themselves to change their original rules to the now current ones.  What they may feel as a result is not relevant to what has occurred here - a voluntary change of the original rules.

Modifié par WebShaman, 15 mai 2011 - 08:15 .

[Elhanan]

@ Web - While feeling cheated does not equate to having cheated, it might if rules had been altered to gain that feeling.

If your low stat Halfling enciuntered the Boss (and how I loathe that term, but I digress) with the newly obtained Boots of Haste, and defeated the foe easily, the Player might decide to return to an earlier save to run the encounter again with another set of footwear. The lack of challenge obtained from the new ruling ruined the original intent. While technically, no rules were broken, as the Player/ DM made them all, the intent of them was severed, thus ruining, spoiling, and cheating the game for the Player.

While using Cheat codes does not equal cheating, it might if they spoil the game for that indv; only they can judge themselves.

[WebShaman]

Elhanan, you are not being logical here.

It does not matter if the game is spoiled by changes to the rules. The point is that no rules are being broken.

You need to separate the emotional content from the debate at hand. It does not matter if changes to the rules result in a positive or negative outcome; it does not change the logical conclusion that no rules were broken.

Now, it MAY matter to the Player in question as to the outcome of the change - sure. I think that it will, and should matter. Those are my personal thoughts on it. But that is outside of what we are debating here. The topic is "is it cheating or not", not "does the player enjoy/dislike X".

Now, if we were debating about player enjoyment here, or emotional content, I would agree, of course. We all play to have fun (well, I hope we all do). When play becomes work, and not fun, then perhaps changes are in order.

Changes to rules may result in a game not being as fun - no doubt about it. The good thing about a Closed SP environment is that one can readily change the rules to compensate for this.

And it is not cheating.

[WebShaman]

Here is an example of what I mean (though this is not based on NWN - rather, on NWN2).

I played MotB, NWN2. I quickly became frustrated with the Spirit Meter. It was cutting into my fun and enjoyment due to how it was implemented. A change for this was offered on the Vault by another who was equally fed up with such - and it made the game much more enjoyable for me.

Was this cheating? Some thought so. I recall at that point that there was a raging debate on it, perhaps more than one, I am not sure. However, in a Closed SP environment, it was definitely not cheating. I changed the rules to be more to my liking, and my fun increased as a result.

Now, one could surely say "well, I completed MotB without any alterations to the offered standard resources. You didn't". And I would say, "Sure. And if you had fun doing so, great. I had fun playing it like I did".

Now, that one person might also say "According to how I play, I consider how you played to be cheating". And I would say, "But we have not agreed to play by the same rules here. You are playing by your rules, and I am playing by my rules. We have in no way, shape, or form made any type of agreements to the contrary. Thus, there is no cheating here involved".

What the person in question really means to say is that if we had agreed to play by her standard of rules, then I would have been cheating because I violated the agreed-upon rules. And this would be true, certainly. But since we did not, there is no cheating involved. She may not like or agree with my playstyle (which is certainly fine). Nobody is forcing her to play according to mine, nor is anyone making her agree to play according to my rules. This is not the equivalent of cheating. No rules have been broken.

Certainly if I make my play style public, one may offer their opinion on it. And that opinion may be negative. That is fine. It is just opinion, after all.

[Elhanan]

WebShaman wrote...

Elhanan, you are not being logical here.

It does not matter if the game is spoiled by changes to the rules. The point is that no rules are being broken.

You need to separate the emotional content from the debate at hand. It does not matter if changes to the rules result in a positive or negative outcome; it does not change the logical conclusion that no rules were broken.

Now, it MAY matter to the Player in question as to the outcome of the change - sure. I think that it will, and should matter. Those are my personal thoughts on it. But that is outside of what we are debating here. The topic is "is it cheating or not", not "does the player enjoy/dislike X".

Now, if we were debating about player enjoyment here, or emotional content, I would agree, of course. We all play to have fun (well, I hope we all do). When play becomes work, and not fun, then perhaps changes are in order.

Changes to rules may result in a game not being as fun - no doubt about it. The good thing about a Closed SP environment is that one can readily change the rules to compensate for this.

And it is not cheating.

While the letter of the Law remains intact, the spirit of the law may be broken. While some may or may not call it cheating, the Player may feel cheated.

Technically you may be correct, but that may not matter to the Player that has spoiled the game for themselves; a reason for using multiple saves over the course of the game.

[WebShaman]

Elhanan said -

Technically you may be correct, but that may not matter to the Player that has spoiled the game for themselves; a reason for using multiple saves over the course of the game.

Ok, now here we are reaching consensus. As long as we agree on the logical conclusion, then whatever other content that is outside of the debate is open to further discussion.

Though why would someone feel cheated by their own self? Perhaps they might feel less enjoyment due to a change (which they can correct if they choose to). Then reverse the change or make a different one.

Something for another topic, methinks.

[_Guile]

Cheating is defined by the game makers....

When the rules are set, bu you never set the rules, TSR / WOTC does....

Why anyone would sweat how people build their toons, like saving Skill Points, etc, is beyond me...

Coming to the boards to bicker about what cheating is, is a waste of time, utterly...

Furthermore, who would want to spend countless hours scripting to prevent cheating offline?

There really is no point, truly, the players can by now simply remove anything you put in there in the toolset...

So trying to stop cheating offline is, at best, a fruitless adventure...

If NWN wasn't so full of troll kings, it would have remained an extremely popular game...
(Troll Kings are by definition, the DM's who don't know what having fun is & they seek to ruin everyone elses fun by dousing the player's fun with stOOpid systems & rules, or worse, adding too much reality to a game of fantasy..)

I cannot count how many players have left servers because of asinine DMs or Builders....  Death to the trolls!


"You can make 10,000,000 laws, and humans will break every single one of them, I garauntee you.."
Naturally some organizations capitalize, even bank on, this fact...

Modifié par _Guile, 16 mai 2011 - 03:56 .

[CBrachyrhynchos]

WebShaman wrote...

to the main fact proven

Declaring something a fact does not make it so, especially given the dozens of counter-examples where the rules are defined by the publisher and not the player. On top of that, facts can not be proven. Conclusions can be proven, but you've not done so.

Then we have reached the consensus that was reached on the old forums, and it is a done thing. Of course, there will always be a strong vocal minority that cannot believe the facts, cannot follow a rational, logical argument and debate and come to the consequential conclusion.

One cannot follow a rational, logical argument when one has not been presented. All you've offered is an argument from definition that's based on a faulty premise. (With plenty of repitition and invective to cover up the the flaws.)

[CBrachyrhynchos]

olivier leroux wrote...

All of this has no relevance in a single player environment, as stated. It doesn't make any sense to mix these two totally different concepts.

Except again, we're not talking about Calvinball. We're talking about games and puzzles that have been published to a mass-market audience. I could take a chess puzzle published by Polgar or a continuation of a master game and solve it using the pre-modern rules that have a vizier rather than a queen, but then, it's not the same puzzle is it? I've broken the rules and logic of the originally published puzzle.

And all of this is quite clear to me having just played Portal 2, which is a collection that includes a couple of duds, and more than its share of brilliant puzzles.

All of the blather about law is irrelevant, as no one is proposing that there should be a law against cheating at games and puzzles. Whether cheating at puzzles is ethical in a SP context likely depends on what form of ethics you advocate, and proposing either one opens up a whole mess of debate that we've only scratched the surface of.

[Shadooow]

_Guile wrote...

...

This thear isnt about if cheating is good or bad or who is better player. Neither about ways how to disallow cheating. This thread is only about if the something is cheating or not at all.

@ShaDoOw - your example does not meet the definitions that I have set
here.  Therefore, they fall outside of the debate.  Any comparison with
others is no longer a Closed SP environment.  And yes, I have already
proven that a Closed SP environment exists, as I and others have
experienced such.  This is also reliably repeatable by others, so it
stands up to peer review.

It sounds to me like some just do not wish to accept that 1+1=2.  Not accepting it, however, does not make it false.

As long as we both play the same game (doesnt matter when or if alone, we both were given the same game from developer) if you make it easier for you, you are cheating from my side of view. Your facts and points that since you playing alone you can change the rules and therefore its not the same game are not valid in my opinion.

No its not me who don't wish to aceept 1+1=2 its you who dont want to accept it. Everywhere else is 1+1=2 but since you dont consult your math equations and answers for them with anyone you believe that 0 is correct answer too

[olivier leroux]

CBrachyrhynchos wrote...
Except again, we're not talking about Calvinball.

Yes, in a way we actually DO talk about Calvinball.

If it's not the same game anymore, how can you claim rules have been broken? Which rules, if you didn't even try to play the game that was provided to you? Anyway, I don't mean to say cheating in SP isn't possible AT ALL and under no circumstances but anyway what does it matter? When you do your own thing it has no relevance if it's cheating or not, if other people call it cheating or not, if you call other people who do it cheaters or not. It may be diverting, as our discussion proves, but still moot.

Provided, of course, you don't claim your Calvinball is the same game that other people play and that the rules you make up should be relevant for others, too. But I don't see anyone claim that here, rather the other way around.

Modifié par olivier leroux, 16 mai 2011 - 07:05 .

[Gregor Wyrmbane]

 Would someone please post a copy of "the rules" that we're supposedly breaking when we use the tool set or command console to enhance our SP session of NWN. Because I have looked through the NWN game manual until my eyes are bleeding, and I can't find them. As I posted earlier, I found reference in the NWN game manual to the rules that are hard coded into the game engine and can't be broken by the player. I also found instructions for the tool set and the console commands. But "the rules" that we're breaking just don't seem to be in the NWN game manual that came with my copy of the game. 

And while we're at it, can some of you module/campaign/setting builders please post "the rules" you published with the module/campaign/setting that you built? I've played quite a few of those that are published on the vault, but none of the ones I downloaded and installed had "the rules" published with them, or set up to appear anywhere in the module/campaign/setting, that I could find. 

Now, as Bioware didn't seem to be too concerned about "the rules" when they "designed" NWN, I can understand how they may have forgot to publish them in some of the game manuals. Perhaps someone else out there has a copy of "the rules" from their NWN game manual. But as adamant as some of you module/campaign/setting builders are about "the rules", I just can't believe you wouldn't have included them with "your" module/campaign/setting. In fact, the only one I saw a single rule published with, was A Dance With Rogues. The single rule in that one was that you had to play a female character. The lady who built it made some "suggestions" about classes and skills to take, but only the one rule. 

[jmlzemaggo]

This is a game, not a church, neither a sect. 
For Christ's sake... :innocent:<3:devil:

Freedom!

[avado]

I wonder, if we change up some of the "images", if we still would argue? (yes, i am afraid it would).

For example, if you are alone in your bedroom, not married. Not in a relationship with anyone. And you are "being with" yourself, are there Are you cheating? What "rules" are you breaking?  Are you hurting anyone else?  Cuz if you are, please tell me on whom (oh crap.. now I got the "god" folks involved)... Same exact discussion, just a slightly more "base" way of looking at the discussion. It is also why the discussion on roleplaying in a closed sp game is also, not really possible, but that last one is just MY thinking.

Modifié par avado, 17 mai 2011 - 12:05 .

[WebShaman]

CBrachyrhynchos, you have expressed your opinion on the matter (and I have already dealt with the area of opinion).

Please provide the proof of your rebuttel (it should be possible to reliable repeat it and stand up under peer review).

The same applies to ShaDoOoW.

First of all, it does not matter if we are "playing the same game" - I would hazard to guess that we are, in fact, not playing the same game. We are using the same framework, yes. Beyond that, any and all similarities vanish.

I use modifications that I sincerely doubt that ShaDoOoW uses (since I do custom modifications to Mods that I play, including the OCs).

That is, however, besides the point as well.

ShaDoOoW, we do not play by the same rules. We have never, EVER agreed to abide by the same rules of play here. That is why I can confidentially state that I play in a Closed SP Environment.

Since we do not play by the same rules (and have not agreed to do so), I cannot be cheating by not following yours. That is just plain, unlogical thinking.

Your private opinion to the contrary is not relevant to the logical conclusion here.

Now, you could say "well, if Player X was playing according to the rules I play by, and did action Y, then she would be cheating". Sure enough. But she isn't, so the question and point is moot here.

[HipMaestro]

I suppose anyone who plays the OC using the Diamond DVD could be considered as cheating since there was never a comprehensive rebalancing done by Bioware for the uber spells and feats that were provided with the expansions.  In a certain respect, a purist would need to insist that the Oc ONLY be played with the original, legacy installation to assure the designed balance.  Therefore, only those who played that campaign when the game was originally released were able to glean the pristine, original game balance.

But... what's the point?  We all use the tools laid in our laps.  To be effective, rules need to be dynamic, changing according to a progressive environment.  There are no PERMANENT rules, in the game or in life.

BTW, I think avado is correct.  It's scary to think about his reasoning, but it makes sense to me.  Time to check my meds now.

[Shadooow]

avado wrote...

I wonder, if we change up some of the "images", if we still would argue? (yes, i am afraid it would).

For
example, if you are alone in your bedroom, not married. Not in a
relationship with anyone. And you are "being with" yourself, are
there Are you cheating? What "rules" are you breaking?  Are you hurting
anyone else?  Cuz if you are, please tell me on whom (oh crap.. now I
got the "god" folks involved)... Same exact discussion, just a slightly
more "base" way of looking at the discussion. It is also why the
discussion on roleplaying in a closed sp game is also, not really
possible, but that last one is just MY thinking.

I don't think you took a right example. Im not sure if its appropriate to discuss about these things here but well I don't think that masturbation in mariage/relationship is commonly view as cheating. It must be something we all agree it is. I think this example could be translated into breaking a no-OOC speak on HCRP server but not all servers have this rule, but all servers probihit abusing of exploits and bugs.

But I can see your point and I found another example that does provide this point clearly.

HipMaestro wrote...

I suppose anyone who plays the OC using the Diamond DVD could be considered as cheating since there was never a comprehensive rebalancing done by Bioware for the uber spells and feats that were provided with the expansions.  In a certain respect, a purist would need to insist that the Oc ONLY be played with the original, legacy installation to assure the designed balance.  Therefore, only those who played that campaign when the game was originally released were able to glean the pristine, original game balance.

But... what's the point?  We all use the tools laid in our laps.  To be effective, rules need to be dynamic, changing according to a progressive environment.  There are no PERMANENT rules, in the game or in life.

BTW, I think avado is correct.  It's scary to think about his reasoning, but it makes sense to me.  Time to check my meds now.

No since thats how we get the game from developers. Either they think about that or not, they allowed expansion content in OC and therefore its not cheating. They allowed it to us (and without using console commands). This is really BS cos you could say the same about patches. I dont think anyone would say that you are cheating cos you have patch 1.69 while he sticked with 1.23.

WebShaman wrote...

Please provide the proof of your rebuttel (it should be possible to reliable repeat it and stand up under peer review).

Yes I dont have proof but neither you have. Your "proof" is based on your individual gaming experiences. At least I never said I have proof cos its probably unproofable.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 18 mai 2011 - 02:38 .

[avado]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

I don't think you took a right example. Im not sure if its appropriate to discuss about these things here but well I don't think that masturbation in mariage/relationship is commonly view as cheating. It must be something we all agree it is. I think this example could be translated into breaking a no-OOC speak on HCRP server but not all servers have this rule, but all servers probihit abusing of exploits and bugs.

But I can see your point and I found another example that does provide this point clearly.

ROFLMAO!  I have no idea what you said!  While you seem to have the jist, you missed the point (dam, once you start down that path, it becomes impossible to ignore...)   Playing a game by yourself, REGARDLESS of what other people think, feel, etc is the same as there are some people out there who could argue that sex is ONLY meant to be done with someone else and ANY other variant is "cheating" or "smurfing" as someone put it.  In a closed system, the arguement is just as ridiculous as it is for cheating as that person controls EVERYTHING/... literally.  The ONLY stretch is that in this case, there is a "game", but not that big of a stretch really. 

Modifié par avado, 18 mai 2011 - 02:48 .

[WebShaman]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Yes I dont have proof but neither you have. Your "proof" is based on your individual gaming experiences. At least I never said I have proof cos its probably unproofable.

As I have already provided my proof (and it has passed peer review, so it is not just based on my individual gaming experiences - see Shia, Kail&Co posts for substantiation), I find your jesting rather lacking.  At least you can admit that you do not have a proof (re: rebuttel) and cannot submit such to peer review.  As such, in your case, the debate has run it's course and you have no other option but denial here (well, unless you wish to accept the facts, that is).

Next!

[HipMaestro]

ShaDoOoW wrote...
No since thats how we get the game from developers. Either they think about that or not, they allowed expansion content in OC and therefore its not cheating.

I disagree.  It would have required a total rebalancing of the OC modules to maintain the challenge they intended.  IMO the release of the expansions simply took precedence over any rebalancing efforts needed by incorporating the features of the expansions.  Once the spells, feats, prestige classes had been added ALL the Bioware modules are subject to using that framework unless they had provided haks or overrides dedicated solely to maintaining the original balance of the OC (or SoU, for that matter).

They allowed it to us (and without using console commands). This is really BS cos you could say the same about patches. I dont think anyone would say that you are cheating cos you have patch 1.69 while he sticked with 1.23.

That's a jump.  I've never read any documentation furnished with the stock game which specifically prohibits the use of the console for any module.  If a patch is devoted to rebalancing the OC or repairing bugs, then no, obviously it couldn't provide an unbalanced environment in which the game would be played.  However, if a patch adds new feats, classes, etc. without considering the effect  (and making the appropriate modifications) it has on the original content's challenge, then yes, it could be considered playing in an artificial environment.  Does creating this artificial, unintended environment constitiute "cheating"?  See below...

The whole "Is it cheating or not" issue, to me at least, seeks to define what measures can be considered changing the gaming environment to make it less balanced, less challenging, less interesting and hence, less fun to play.  My own stance is that it is totally subjective (i.e. a personal bias) and cannot be quantified.  I have read nothing that can be reasonably construed as being quantitative in nature, just personal perspectives and innuendo, which is fine by me, just not objective enough to prompt notetaking.

To each his (or her) own.