UESP Forums

NOTICE: Please read this as intended; as a lighthearted commentary with humorous finger pointing, knowing full well three fingers are pointing at myself, yet still a serious inquiry.

Over the whole of UESP there seems to be a genuine attempt to avoid encouraging or promoting cheating. There’s this unwritten law that says you should have some experience of the game as it was presented, before jumping in and imposing your individually specific preferences. What I find interesting, is how the pages vary in degree and definition of what is considered a cheat. In the Skyrim section, it looks like large steps were taken to avoid even using the word “cheat”. I found one location under Making Money used to notify: “those aren’t welcome here”. Yet, under Leveling, we clearly share exploits like attacking Essential NPC’s. (“That’s not cheating. That’s an exploit!”)

Oblivion has this to add regarding Glitches: “Any event that is a logical consequence of an intended game feature (no matter how extreme) is not a glitch.” That sounds reasonable, but I have one question. Who’s logic are we considering as the standard? Each of us (every one of us) create lore explanations in our heads for the odd things around us and the things we want to do that others may consider cheating. Then conversely point to someone else’s lore finagling as “wishful thinking”.

My favorite and most entertaining is Morrowind:Cheats. We start with this open understanding that the lines can get blurry between outright cheats and exploits and clever game play. Then we tag on the NOTICE. “..Glitches are not listed on this page…" "...A glitch, in contrast, is a flaw in the game that is NOT meant to be there, even if a player can still take advantage of it.” Yes. Absolutely! In complete contrast to Free Money where you buy for 0 and sell for 1 and also Infinite Levels where you trick a trainer so you can keep getting skill points, even though each time they give you a message that states you’ve finally reached level 100….over and over again.

This is a side note, but I wanted to add it here because it pertains to uniformity across the various games. Over at Skyrim:Glitches, we find what I consider to be a fairly good rule of thumb when considering documenting glitches. Primarily that they should be located under the section where the glitch would most likely be encountered. - It then proceeds to bolster my now favorite mantra; “It’s not a cheat. “It’s an exploit”

So…is there a documented recommendation for documenting glitches, cheats, exploits and their various cross-breeding counterparts, that could/should be applied to the site as a whole? If not, should we have one?

Though somehow I feel the response might be as varied as the number of individuals.

EDIT: At the top I created a test link to help me create links used in this post. At the side, I put this in bold letters: "REMOVE ME"...and then I forgot to remove it.

Exploits involve taking advantage of existing gameplay mechanics. Cheating is a deliberate act and probably involves console commands.

In general I think the namespaces are pretty consistent with this definition, but I would offer a word of caution when comparing our documentation of different games. They are from differing eras and different editors.

This is true, but the emphasis is on "involve." (Note that I'm not trying to quibble with your comment.)

That is to say, all exploits are by definition cases of taking advantage of existing gameplay mechanics, but all cases of taking advantage of existing gameplay mechanics are not necessarily exploits.

In some cases it's clear that something is an exploit; but it isn't always clear-cut, and that's when players can get into heated arguments.

As long as people are talking about a single-player game and no competitive title is involved, such as the highest score or the fastest win, it generally isn't an issue whether a player is exploiting existing gameplay mechanics to attain an unintended advantage-- and that's a large part of the reason why it can be so hard to identify whether something is an exploit or not, because the game designers don't always come out and say in unambiguous terms whether some resulting advantage was intended or unintended. Players might decide to use exploits or not depending on their own personal goals in playing the game, and might decide to use some exploits but not others.

But when people are talking about a multi-player game, or some kind of competitive title in a single-player game, then the fur can fly as they argue whether something is an exploit or not.

Case #1: In my newest game of Arena, I was trying to acquire enough gold to buy an ebony torc and an ebony bracelet, because my character is a healer who can't use any armor heavier than chain mail, so it's vital for her survivability that I improve her Armor Rating as much as possible and as soon as possible. So when I found a fortress just outside of town, I decided to make use of the exploit where you can go back and forth between two floors several times to increase the gold and items in the loot piles. I'd go into the fort, run to the stairs, go up and down numerous times, clear the second floor, go back down and clear the first floor, exit the fortress, reenter and repeat, over and over until I had enough gold to buy the desired items. It's clear that I was exploiting something about how the game works, but the only person affected was myself, so it came down to whether I wanted to play the game more leisurely and amass enough gold "honestly" no matter how long it took, or whether I wanted to hurry up so I could get on with the game.

Case #2: In my just-completed playthrough of Arena, I was taking as much time as necessary to explore every nook and cranny of every dungeon. I decided not to do that on the first level of Murkmire due to how incredibly annoying it is to try to map every pixel of a level that has so much open space, and also decided to cut short my exploration of the Imperial Palace due to the number and difficulty of the enemies on each floor; but aside from those two instances, I took my time and explored at my leisure. I also did not refer to any maps, either in the Codex Scientia, in the UESPWiki, or anywhere else; and even when I already knew the location of a quest item, or of the stairs to the next level, I still explored every iota of every level of (nearly) every dungeon. But in my new game, I've already chosen to cut my explorations short in certain situations. For instance, I heard a rumor about the Ring of Khajiit, so I decided to fast-track the dungeon containing the map to its location, then fast-track the dungeon containing the ring, by making use of my knowledge of how the random dungeons are constructed-- where the stairs are, what the floor plans of the various building blocks look like, where the map is located, etc. This is a gray area in terms of whether I was using an exploit, because it really involves knowledge more than mechanics. Is it an exploit to refer to a map that someone else made and published in a book or on a website? Is it an exploit to use your own knowledge gained from prior gaming sessions? I think most players would say that it isn't an "exploit" per se, but that it's still a form of cheating to a certain extent, especially if you're relying on knowledge that you didn't acquire yourself. But in terms of immersion and role-playing, is it okay for a new character to benefit from the player's pre-existing knowledge of where things are in the game, of how dungeons are laid out, etc.? Obviously this is up to each player to decide, and a given player's decision may vary depending on the specific circumstances during a given gaming session, or their mood at the time, etc.

My conclusion: (so you don't have to read the rest)
It seems the most effective and practical method would be to categorize rather than prohibit or attempt to limit what is added in regards to cheats, exploits, glitches, console commands, mods, hacks, etc.

I agree in the sense that we should take into consideration the flow and "rules" that are consistent within a game-space and realize there are differences. Also that uniformity and consistency is more important primarily within a page, then secondarily within a game-space, and only tertiarily within all of UESP where it is not covered in the sites guidelines. I don't have a desire to try and make any sweeping changes, however, this is a wiki. The documentation isn't static. While it is unlikely that any changes would be necessary for games that have been examined and written about for years; it happens. Those that may wish to add information may not be playing just one game and uniformity greatly adds to the comfort of jumping between game-spaces. There is already "considerable" consistency throughout the different games-spaces. My point and intention was simply in trying to ensure that I myself aim for that same consistency in anything I may consider adding. However, there are some small areas that are not as easy to discern what is most appropriate.

While I agree with this (also in general), it is when an author becomes very deliberate in trying to "prevent" certain things from being added, that it becomes ambiguous. (And to me...humorous.)

Skyrim: Making Money

This guide should not be used to suggest any cheats or exploits for making money. All methods must be 100% legitimate.

This is not in anyway intended to be a put down of the author. I clearly understand the intent - it's just not possible. This directly relates to SeaGtGruff's comments. Who determines which game mechanics are intended as normal gameplay and which are exploits? Yes, I agree many are obvious, but technically every time I resurrect, I'm using an exploit. How about saving right before I fight a monster? What If I restart to see if I get better loot?

Morrowind: Cheats

Please note that Console Commands and Glitches are not listed on this page ....
...A glitch, in contrast, is a flaw in the game that is not meant to be there, even if a player can still take advantage of it.

Again, the intent is clear and reasonable, but ambiguous in practice. Not everyone agrees on what IS and what ISN'T "meant to be there". Many things fall in that gray area between glitch (not intended) and exploit (intended, "but not the way you're using it"). For completeness and consistency, I would say that a cheat is anything that changes the original code. This would technically include built in methods like console commands and also mods or hacks. There's a lot of crossover, personal opinion, and discrepancy between intent and result.

I realize there are multiple contributors, but finding the content below these message that obviously violate these messages is somewhat humorous and not encyclopedic-like.
My original intent was to determine if these comments reflected current moderation or site intent, or if they were author specific. "Do we want to avoid adding information on ways to cheat? and if so, what is our criteria for determining what is a cheat? Can certain exploits or glitches be considered cheats?"
It seems the most effective and practical method would be to categorize rather than prohibit or attempt to limit what is added in regards to cheats, exploits, glitches, console commands, mods, hacks, etc.