I think this is a bit of an oversimplification of veekie's stance. Cheating is only okay if the DM is okay with it. Since the DM is the rules arbiter and source, if the DM is okay with it implicitly or explicitly, then it's not cheating because then it's an explicit or implicit part of the ruleset.
Now, since the DM has to manage the fun-levels of the other players, the DM shouldn't usually be okay with it if the other players aren't okay with it.
That's... what I said. I uh, can't see the difference between what I said and what you're saying. Maybe I just made unspoken assumptions in my post that I should've clarified.
I don't think most people would really want to call D&D competitive even though every single encounter can be called a competition by definition (definition being "to strive to outdo another for acknowledgment, a prize, supremacy, profit, etc.; engage in a contest; vie: to compete in a race; to compete in business.") The reason is there's a certain weight to the word competition that inclines people to shy away from using it when talking about tabletop games and certain aspects of video games and such. It's a bit hypocritical of course to say things meant for fun can't be competitive since major sports qualify for that, but that's how it is.
The people on this board also had a rather bad experience with a former poster who was the kind of player that only saw D&D as competitive and even went so far as to say if others didn't play with that view in mind they were doing it wrong. Bringing up even the slightest hint of D&D being competitive brings up "bad mojo" so to speak, and it'll take some time for our hard heads to soften up to a moderate view of competitive D&D in light of that. However, butting heads will only serve to crack skulls so we need to make sure things don't get out of hand (and they thankfully haven't much from what I can see).
Ahhhhh, that makes perfect sense. I now see why everyone was so oddly defensive about it. There's nothing wrong with competition. As you say, it's perfectly okay to be a sports fan, a great deal of videogames or tabletop games are all about adversary competition (and that's okay), and RPGs usually support all kinds of playstyles, from the non-competitive to the different types of competition. There's nothing inherently wrong with deriving enjoyment from competition. The word does get demonised fairly often, but my approach to the subject is more or less that every problem that competition has been blamed for is really just a matter of one or more people placing their goals above the physical or emotional wellbeing of others. I think that playing games competitively is okay. And it's just as okay to play them non competitively.
Since that is the last point that hasn't been covered here, I'll explain why people aren't getting what you're saying: how you're using the word is completely different from what it means here.
com·pete /kəmˈpēt/
Verb: Strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same.
That's what the word means here. It might mean something different where you come from, but what you call co-operative competition is not understood to be a competition at all in... well, any place I've ever been to. That's why people are confused by you calling it a competition. What you call a "co-operative competition" is just called "a set standard".
Yeah, Jackinthegreen clarified that for me. However, I think that A) Competition is okay regardless of whether it's a set standard or not (that is, there's no need to say "competition is okay
because it's a set standard", it should be "competition is okay because there's nothing inherently wrong with it"), and B) Even if something is a set standard in a place, there should be room to discuss and regard other playstyles as equally valid. For example, while I understand the backlash against adversary competition, I personally don't have a problem with it and I think that the playstyle of a group who engages in adversary competition is just as valid and worth listening to or taking into consideration as the "set standard"; and on the other side, groups that do not engage in any form of competition and who also do not follow the set standard, should be treated in the same way.
In short, what I'm trying to say is that it really shouldn't matter (in my opinion) if a playstyle is seen as the set standard or not, because that usually tends to be used elsewhere (I haven't seen it here yet) as an excuse to dismiss discussions, concerns or valid points raised, under the rationale that "if he or she doesn't play the way I play (i.e., doesn't fit the set standard), their opinions don't hold the same weight or deserve the same attention as anybody else's." Which is a shame, really, because segregation and alienation tend to do more harm than good in our hobby as a whole (see: my constant repetition that we as gamers and hobbyists have to stick together rather than bickering over minor differences).
Cheating can remove some of the... experience... the 'reward'.
I don't mean bonus exp, I mean... lets say you have an epic duel and you're knocked off a cliff and you manage to grab onto a branch... your friend then flies down and pulls you to the top of the cliff for you to finish your duel and win.
You think... "wow, epic... that was a really good story telling experience" then you happen to glance at your friend's spell-list OOC and realise he doesn't know "fly" so you ask.
"Oh yeah, well my character doesn't know of the spell but I thought it'd be really useful and you'd die if I didn't"
He's not cheated for his own gain... he's cheated for the good of the party... but it's cheapened the experience. It's no longer an epic story of the Duel that was almost a loss... it's a story of that one time he cheated.
In my eyes it's the same as a DM who will not punish his players for fighting Adult Dragons at level 1. If you tell them 50 times to turn back and suggest they'll die and they die... then they die... having DM Fiat save the day babysits them and trivializes challenges. Having players do the same is just that... the same.
That, I think, is an excellent point. I do see the problem with cheating from that angle, and it's also similar to what Unbeliever said before about how sometimes the problem is not only the cheating itself, but the goal intended (e.g., it's still wrong to overshadow everyone in the party legitimately, the cheating only makes it worse). Here, am I correct to assume that you'd also find it anticlimactic if a completely legit wizard stepped up to the bad guy before the epic duel could begin and reduced him to ash with an Empowered, Maximised, Twinned, Repeated Disintegrate? (which, if my calculations are correct, deals around 1440 damage).
