First of all, thanks for linking to Shannon Appelcline's excellent series of articles. While exploring some of his other offerings, I came across one that deals with problems external to the game(http://www.skotos.net/articles/TTnT_156.phtml). While the focus was on Online RPG games, he mentioned how the various problems are handled by Tabletop games as well.
The topic got me thinking: has anyone ever seen a game that makes cheating irrelevant? I have a few thoughts on the matter:
Irrelevance - by definition - would imply that a cheater's actions would have no impact on the outcome of the game. That seems to be oxymoronic, since cheating - by definition - is an attempt to gain an unfair advantage by performing an action that is contrary to the rules of the game.
Therefore, if cheating is to be irrelevant, the game must not have an advantageous outcome! How much fun is that?
Fluxx is the only game I can think of that has the means to accomplish this. For instance, if a player had the opportunity to palm an extra card or two while drawing from the deck, he might think he'd have an advantage, as he would have more options during his turn. However, there are so many variables that could result in his hand becoming worthless, that there is almost no point to it. Of course, if he were to unfairly draw a winning goal that he could capitalize on immediately, then his cheating will have ruined at least the spirit of the game (if no one caught him).
My opinion of Fluxx is that - aside from keeping younger children entertained on a rainy day - due to its randomness, it is not too much fun.
One might argue that abstract games of skill, such as chess, don't lend themselves to cheating, because all pieces are visible to all participants and each participant is in full view of the other(s), but that is not my point. If the stakes are high enough, a determined cheater could find a way to receive help by communicating with an observing co-conspirator who is a better player than both of the participants (sign-language, a walkie-talkie disguised as a hearing-aid, etc.)
Is there a point to designing a game that is cheater-proof? I would not want the answer to be that the game rewards cheating, thereby encouraging all players to cheat, unless doing so effectively removes the incentive to cheat!. The reason I say that is, as soon as the game makes allowances for cheating, it becomes part of the rules and, therefore, is no longer considering cheating!
If I were to attempt to make cheating irrelevant in a game, I would model the Darwinian principal of survival of the fittest. Since a cheater would not rely on using the rules to his maximum benefit, while his non-cheating counterparts would, the non-cheaters presumably would become more skilled at the game, possibly rendering the cheater's methods obsolete (or, at least, less effective.) Of course, Darwin didn't discriminate, and it is quite possible that the cheater would be the one to adapt and maintain his domination of the game. (Brings to mind Black-hats vs White-hats in the computer world of crackers.)
So, it seems that a Darwinian model would have to favor non-cheaters, but how? My knowledge of biology is too limited to understand if such favoring actually hurts the beneficiary in the long run (antibiotics favor human and cattle only to a point, for example.)
Mitch
I think zendo would count as a game where cheating has minimal relevance.
Yes you can steal guessing stones but if you are wrong you only help your opponent. Yes you could secretly get suggestions from a better player but there is a change they are wrong as well in which case you would be helping your opponents. While there is much strategy in zendo that can seperate the newlings from the masters, this is a induction game and so it is very hard to be absolutely right in your guesses.