Everybody Cheats?

Gary Alan Fine's early survey of role-playing games found that everybody cheated. But the definition of what cheating is when it applies to role-playing games differs from other uses of the term. Does everyone really cheat in RPGs? Yes, Everybody Gary Alan Fine's work, Shared Fantasy, came to the following conclusion: Perhaps surprisingly, cheating in fantasy role-playing games is...

Gary Alan Fine's early survey of role-playing games found that everybody cheated. But the definition of what cheating is when it applies to role-playing games differs from other uses of the term. Does everyone really cheat in RPGs?

61MMguCyhiL._AC_SL1500_.jpg

Yes, Everybody​

Gary Alan Fine's work, Shared Fantasy, came to the following conclusion:
Perhaps surprisingly, cheating in fantasy role-playing games is extremely common--almost everyone cheats and this dishonesty is implicitly condoned in most situation. The large majority of interviewees admitted to cheating, and in the games I played, I cheated as well.
Fine makes it a point of clarify that cheating doesn't carry quite the same implications in role-playing as it does in other games:
Since FRP players are not competing against each other, but are cooperating, cheating does not have the same effect on the game balance. For example, a player who cheats in claiming that he has rolled a high number while his character is fighting a dragon or alien spaceship not only helps himself, but also his party, since any member of the party might be killed. Thus the players have little incentive to prevent this cheating.
The interesting thing about cheating is that if everyone cheats, parity is maintained among the group. But when cheating is rampant, any player who adheres slavishly to die-roll results has "bad luck" with the dice. Cheating takes place in a variety of ways involving dice (the variable component PCs can't control), such as saying the dice is cocked, illegible, someone bumped the table, it rolled off a book or dice tray, etc.

Why Cheat?​

One of the challenges with early D&D is that co-creator Gary Gygax's design used rarity to make things difficult. This form of design reasoned that the odds against certain die rolls justified making powerful character builds rare, and it all began with character creation.

Character creation was originally 3d6 for each attribute, full stop. With the advent of computers, players could automate this rolling process by rapidly randomizing thousands of characters until they got the combination of numbers they wanted. These numbers dictated the PC's class (paladins, for example, required a very strict set of high attributes). Psionics too, in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, required a specific set of attributes that made it possible to spontaneously manifest psionic powers. Later forms of character generation introduced character choice: 4d6 assigned to certain attributes, a point buy system, etc. But in the early incarnations of the game, it was in the player's interest, if she wanted to play a paladin or to play a psionic, to roll a lot -- or just cheat (using the dice pictured above).

Game masters have a phrase for cheating known as "fudging" a roll; the concept of fudging means the game master may ignore a roll for or against PCs if it doesn't fit the kind of game he's trying to create. PCs can be given extra chances to reroll, or the roll could be interpreted differently. This "fudging" happens in an ebb and flow as the GM determines the difficulty and if the die rolls support the narrative.

GM screens were used as a reference tool with relevant charts and to prevent players from seeing maps and notes. But they also helped make it easier for GMs to fudge rolls. A poll on RPG.net shows that over 90% of GMs fudged rolls behind the screen.

Cheating Is the Rule​

One of Fifth Edition's innovations was adopting a common form of cheating -- the reroll -- by creating advantage. PCs now have rules encouraging them to roll the dice twice, something they've been doing for decades with the right excuse.

When it comes to cheating, it seems like we've all been doing it. But given that we're all working together to have a good time, is it really cheating?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Aldarc

Legend
It would probably help if people bother reading the article rather than knee-jerk reacting. I read the article, followed the links in the OP, and I looked into the quoted statements and methodology.

In the OP, people should probably understand the word "survey" in the opening statement "Gary Alan Fine's early survey of role-playing games" as "review" or "overview." This is the only use of the term "survey" in the original post.

What does that have to do with the author of this thread's article who claims numbers that he doesn't produce,
No, he doesn't. He reports the findings of another author's book and explores the implications of those findings.

Yeah, this survey is horse manure. I mean people object to using Enworlders' opinions as a base because of the small population size of gamers, yet this guy gets away with using two dozen interviews.:erm:
"This guy gets away with using two dozen interviews" probably because it's not a survey, or at least not a quantitative survey. It is qualitative research conducted via interviews. This is a common sample size for this method. Some will recommend 5-25, others 20-30, but rarely above 50 people. Quantitative results would not necessarily produce better results as people could and possibly would more easily lie about whether they cheat if presented with a survey question. The benefit of qualitative analysis methods like interviews is that the interviewers can loosen up the tongues of the subject and engage in more open discussion or potential results and explanations.

I have attempted looking via Google scholar whether or not there has been any follow-up research on the issue of cheating in FRP, but it does not appear that interesting of a subject matter for people. Less the cheating part but the FRP part. There are far more initial documents on cheating in MMORPGs and virtual environments than in FRPs as a tabletop hobby. I may look again, but it's far from being a high priority for me.

You keep saying that phrase, but it simply does not apply. First, there is no rose involved with fudging. Cheating is cheating, and fudging absolutely, 100% is not. Second, you don't know whether the first person to call it fudging did so because he thought it was cheating, or whether he just loved fudge. He may have even altered a roll that landed IN some fudge.
"Fudging" is a term that predates gaming deriving from an original sense of "to contrive clumsily," and so I don't think that it comes from the edible "fudge," though the edible does likely derive from this sense due to how it's made. But it's more modern sense of meaning has changed. In a non-gaming context, it essentially means speaking dishonestly, cheating, exaggerating to provide leeway for error or falsehood, or avoiding an issue, etc. It's fairly clear that "fudging" does not have a positive context here and it is associated with cheating even outside of gaming. For example, politicians may fudging with vague statements so as to intentionally mislead or obscure falsehood.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Further, since I remember seeing someone earlier say that the survey was from 1983, I'd bet that most of those two dozen gamer were 25 or younger. The young cheat more. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/29/local/me-dishonest29.
I suspect this might be the most important element of all here.

Even in this thread numerous people have posted words to the effect of "I used to cheat but I don't any more".

Were someone to drop by, say, GenCon this summer and pull 40 random D&D players of varying ages aside for a brief interview I think the results would be quite different. I also suspect there'd be a pretty decent correlation between increasing age and decreasing cheat amounts.

Lan-"cheater - the only class in which you lose levels as a direct result of aging"-efan
 

wcpfish

First Post
"One of Fifth Edition's innovations was adopting a common form of cheating -- the reroll -- by creating advantage"

This statement is simply ludicrous. "Adopting a form of cheating", how about "representing a situation where one opponent has a tactical advantage over another and the game needs a mechanic to represent that". Is getting a +2 bonus to a die roll "cheating"? After all the number has now been "doctored" to be two points higher than before. SMH.
 

Gibili

Explorer
What do you think is the difference between cheating and fudging then?

Interesting question. I suspect that they are points along a continuum, based on frequency, severity and intent to gain advantage over another player(s) or the DM. There is therefore always going to be a grey area between, but where the extremes are quite clear.

For me, if doing it makes the game more fun and enjoyable, without fundementally changing the way it is being played, then it is fudging. That's why DMs cannot cheat, unless there is clear intent on the DM's part to make the player's lives unpleasent, and not in a fun way. :)

Cheating on the other hand is an attempt to gain advantage over another player or players, or to change the way the game plays i.e. in a game where succuss is based on skill + random element, cheating is an attempt to remove that random element.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
What do you think is the difference between cheating and fudging then?

One is cheating and the other is not. Cheating involves breaking a rule for advantage in game play. The DM can't break rules and has an overwhelming advantage built in to his role by said "rules"(guidelines to him really), so no amount of fudging can grant an advantage to him as he already has it. The DM can abuse his power, but he cannot cheat.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
That's convenient. We'll add in a rule to allow a specific person at the table to change the rules at will. So, we're not "cheating", we're using "rule 0". Note, that Rule 0 has changed a LOT over the years. Rule 0 in AD&D was never "Change the rules whenever you feel like it". It was "Whenever there is a conflict between interpretations of the rules, the DM's interpretation wins". The whole "you can ignore the rules" thing is something that has been added in along the way to salve people's egos.

The rule is what it is. How you interpret it has a lot to do with whether you're a half full or half empty kind of person.

If you're half-empty then it's an ego salve
If you're half-full it's the enabler of all the kit bashing done on the forums and in the hobby.

Which one any particular person is seems to have a lot to do with whether or not a pet peeve has been enabled. Either way, DMs can't cheat. They either have fun with their group or they drive them away. That's the flexibility of the rules set.

Be well
KB
 

What do you think is the difference between cheating and fudging then?

I don't know about labels but there is a massive difference between a player lying about a dice roll or number to personally benefit themselves and a DM lying about a dice roll or number (either in or against the PC's favor) to keep the game interesting and benefit everyone's fun.

More simply, what would be the opinion of everyone else in the group if they found out?

How many players who "cheat" would have no problem telling the group they do it? Conversely, how many DMs who "fudge" would have no problem telling the rest of the group or likely already have told them and/or asked if it was ok to do on occasion?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

"This guy gets away with using two dozen interviews" probably because it's not a survey, or at least not a quantitative survey. It is qualitative research conducted via interviews. This is a common sample size for this method. Some will recommend 5-25, others 20-30, but rarely above 50 people. Quantitative results would not necessarily produce better results as people could and possibly would more easily lie about whether they cheat if presented with a survey question. The benefit of qualitative analysis methods like interviews is that the interviewers can loosen up the tongues of the subject and engage in more open discussion or potential results and explanations.

Thanks for this explanation! That makes a lot of sense.
 

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
I don't know about labels but there is a massive difference between a player lying about a dice roll or number to personally benefit themselves and a DM lying about a dice roll or number (either in or against the PC's favor) to keep the game interesting and benefit everyone's fun.

More simply, what would be the opinion of everyone else in the group if they found out?

How many players who "cheat" would have no problem telling the group they do it? Conversely, how many DMs who "fudge" would have no problem telling the rest of the group or likely already have told them and/or asked if it was ok to do on occasion?

Kudos here because I think you nailed it insofar as the cheat vs. fudge. In games where this is possible.

1. Cheat - No shared outcome - individual gain only or there is some group of players that's on the losing end.
2. Fudge - Shared outcome - entire table benefits.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Kudos here because I think you nailed it insofar as the cheat vs. fudge. In games where this is possible.

1. Cheat - No shared outcome - individual gain only or there is some group of players that's on the losing end.
2. Fudge - Shared outcome - entire table benefits.
Yet fudging can also entail "entire table suffers." Fudging is not always positive for the players. And players are not always fudging their rolls for the sake of the player character. This even gets discussed in the quotes from the OP's book.

Also as an aside, I don't buy into this whole "good DM" vs. "bad DM" meta-narrative that seeks to excrete a set of XYZ behaviors, trends, and methods onto a fictional and nebulous class of DM for the sake of uplifting the class of DMs dubbed "good" who coincidentally happen to align with the practices of the speaker.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top