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

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Fate is a more player/narrative-driven game. Combat is not the end-all-be-all of the game. Character advancement is not necessarily about improving your combat effectiveness nor should your success as a character be measured in combat or the accumulation of experience thereof.
Unfortunately combat was the only example I could quickly think of where it's usually pretty obvious who's contributing and who's not.

Does that mean that characters will shy away from combat? For your groups? Maybe. In my actual experience running Fate? Hell no!
Good on your lot, then! :)

So just for an example. A minor milestone reward may include renaming one of your non-High Concept aspects. So you could rename your "Disheveled by Brother's Unsolved Murder" aspect to "Sworn Enemy of Cobra Cult" after finding out who did it during play. So now your aspect invokes/compels will work towards the latter now that the former has been made irrelevant through completing an arc wherein you discovered that Cobra Cult was responsible for your brother's death. And just as a quick refresher, when you invoke an aspect, you spend one of your fate points generally either to re-roll your results or to gain a +2 bonus to the dice results for a given action. But you can only invoke that aspect when that aspect is relevant to the narrative fiction. So you may only get that +2 bonus or re-roll when you are dealing with Cobra Cult in some way, whether that is combat or investigating a scene they are likely involved.

(1) If you are making a discovery as a group, as is the case more often then not, then you get XP as a group.
OK, what if you're making a discovery as an individual? Using your example above, what if I discovered the Cobra Cult knocked off my brother through research I did on my own - would only I get the xp? If yes, we're good. :)

(2) XP in Numenera tends to be given in incredibly small gradients: 1-2 XP.

Numenera is composed of Six Tiers/Levels. So in order to level up, you need to spend 4 XP on each of the four requirements for each level-up: effort, edge, skill, 4 points to your stat pools. You don't need to know what these do for our discussion, but I thought I would list them. So 16 XP per tier for 5 tiers or 80 XP total to get from Tier 1 to Tier 6. But there is not really a need to be in a mad rush to Tier 6 as the power curve is not as pronounced as it is in D&D.
So, same general idea but a slower and softer advancement. Sounds good!

XP is not just meant to be hoarded, but also used. XP is also spent in other ways, such as 1 XP for a short-term benefit (e.g., re-rolls, rejecting GM Intrusions), 2 XP for a medium-term benefit (e.g., localized skill, jury-rigging a one use magical item from multiple other ones), and 3 XP for long-term benefits (e.g., contacts, familiarity [+1 to rolls for a certain task]). But players may still want to hoard their XP for leveling.
3e D&D had you use xp for magic item creation; and I'll say here as I said there: it's an awful mechanic!

Why? Because it takes xp completely out of any type of in-game rationale (they represent the accumulated memories and experience and training a character has had at the various skills/abilities/etc. of its class) and puts them completely into the metagame as a player-spendable currency.

One word reply: unconvinced. Why not just make the weak baboon worth 0 XP because you just defeated a weak baboon, which should probably be worthless to begin with, and then make the strong baboon worth 2 XP?
In part because nothing is ever worth 0 xp. One weak baboon in this case might be worth 0.2 xp but when ten of them jump you they're worth ten times that. I'd rather granularize it so the lone one is still worth something, even if very little.

Nigel Tufnel: "...but these [baboons] go to 23 XP."
Er...I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure it was Derek Smalls in that scene... :)

Lan-"nobody knows 'oo they were, or, wot they were doin'"-efan
 

log in or register to remove this ad

prosfilaes

Adventurer
So, secretly altering a die roll after the fact during the game in order to affect a different outcome is somehow not cheating?

You have a quite different definition of cheating from me.

Yes, I do. I've given you a functional definition: "To violate rules in order to gain advantage from a situation", taken from a dictionary, so it's not incredibly idiosyncratic. Why go "Ok. :uhoh:"?

a) dishonest in nature because you are keeping the activity secret from the players

GMs keep a lot of activity secret from the players. Most games involve some sort of secret information, like cards concealed from other players.

b) self-serving because you are attempting to create a specific outcome that you think is better.

There are definitions of self-serving that include basically everything, because even if you give the bum on the corner your last buck, it's because you feel better about doing so. More normal definitions, however, would exclude actions taken to benefit others, and GMs usually ignore dice rolls to make the game more fun for their players as much for themselves.

Oh, right, it's not cheating because it's allowed by the rules which have been changed over the years to rebrand cheating as "fudging".

Again, by the definition I gave you above, if it's not violating rules, it's not cheating.

Game design evolves by breaking the assumptions of previous games. Is it cheating to show your teammates your cards? Not in Pandemic, and not in Hanabi, where it is cheating to look at your cards, but you can see your teammate's cards. According to a poker judge I know, official rules say you say just about anything about your cards except the truth. It's a weird rule, and I don't quite understand the motivation, but the power to create that rule allows exploring that game space. There's a competitive card game I played long ago where you could pick up a card that would let the player take gems from the board if they could do it without being caught. It is an interesting rule/card, and a good thing that game makers could explore that space. I think it bad to throw around the word "cheating" to include things that game designers consider features of their games.
 


pemerton

Legend
And a strong incentive to metagame, as a probably unintended side effect.
Huh? The bond mechanic in DW is based on a similar mechanic in Apocalypse World, desgined by Vincent Baker who is up there with Robin Laws as one of the most important and influential RPG designers. The incentives the system generates are absolutely intended.

Until you don't, or can't, because your PC has died or otherwise been rendered unfit to continue.
At leat in my group, players whose PCs die are allowed to make new characters and keep playing.

As soon as the game can kill your PC without your-as-player pre-approval, the basic goal is survival.
Do you have any argument for this assertion?

A DM running those encounters in such a way as to spare the PCs is kinda letting the game down.
I'm not talking about GM-side techniques. I'm talking about player-side resources.

over-cautious (i.e. cowardly) gaming *is* a power-gaming tactic, only way more passive-aggressive than how the term is usually applied. She who fights and runs away lives to fight another day...even if in her running away she's left her (now ex-)companions to take the heat for her and maybe even get killed off.
How do you envisage this happening in the context of 4e? What fun do you think that "over-cautious" player is having? What resolution methods are you envisaging?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I am asking that you respect what I wrote and what I have argued. I don't know why you feel obligated to be obtuse about showing a modicum of human decency and common courtesy here. So how about this? How about you come back with an argument that actually engages and respects what I am arguing as opposed to what you imagine I am arguing, and then I will engage that? Adopting that approach going forward does seem more in line with the board's rules and etiquette.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you have been saying. My understanding of what you have been saying is that a rule that allows you to alter die rolls(which is another rule) is cheating. Is that correct or incorrect?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
If it's part of organized play, it absolutely can and should be called cheating to not use the rules.

Organized play is a different beast and should be discussed entirely separately from normal game play. In any case, the rules of 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e include the DM altering die rolls, so...
 


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I've encountered GMs whose desire to tell others the story they've come up with is no all that altruistic!
By your definition, certainly; and by that of a detached observer, possibly.

But from the perspective of the GM in question? Almost never. They think they're doing a good thing...and sometimes they really are: a few (but sadly, not enough) GMs are good enough story-tellers that being along for the ride is more than entertainment enough.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Huh? The bond mechanic in DW is based on a similar mechanic in Apocalypse World, desgined by Vincent Baker who is up there with Robin Laws as one of the most important and influential RPG designers. The incentives the system generates are absolutely intended.
So am I right in interpreting this to mean you believe these designers intentionally want to incent the sort of metagaming I described?

If yes, I can safely ignore their designs and ideas henceforth and not feel like I'm missing anything useful.

At leat in my group, players whose PCs die are allowed to make new characters and keep playing.
At the same level? (I assume yes for 4e but that's not the case for all systems and-or tables) The same wealth? The same amount of in-game character knowledge?

And if a PC dies halfway through an adventure and isn't revived until the adventure is complete, does that PC still get full xp for the adventure? A full treasury share (and this should be up to the players to decide)?

Do you have any argument for this assertion?
Yes: a PC's simple sense of self-preservation.

If I'm playing Jocinda* in H1 and we plow our way through to the final two big set-piece encounters (the first of which is quite good, the second of which needs a lot of fill-in-the-blanks from the DM to make work), it doesn't matter if my character goal is to slay Kalarel and free my ancestor - the trapped knight from the shield, whose name I forget - if I don't survive the pseudo-vampires above.

And both those encounters certainly have the potential to be deadly if one gets unlucky and-or dumb and-or doesn't have the right resources in the party, provided the DM doesn't pull her punches.

* - though I keep using the name, I've never played a character named Jocinda...that'll have to be my next one, after the five or so other "next ones" already waiting in line. :)

I'm not talking about GM-side techniques. I'm talking about player-side resources.
I'm talking about both, because no matter how much resources the game gives the players eventually their luck will run out and - unless the DM prevents it somehow - one or more PCs will die.

How do you envisage this happening in the context of 4e? What fun do you think that "over-cautious" player is having? What resolution methods are you envisaging?
Not sure what you mean about "what resolution methods am I envisaging?" - the coward flees (provided she can safely detach herself from combat her escape is automatic if she knows a safe way out, maybe a skill challenge otherwise) while the rest play out the combat as per usual.

And in the extreme case: if the rest of the party get slaughtered, suddenly the coward is now the party! She can go back to town and recruit some replacements (and probably would, once everyone else gets their new PCs rolled up); but now she's the boss. She can hand-pick who comes into what is now her party; and she-as-player can even in meta-speak announce what she'd prefer to see as replacements before anyone does any rolling, should she so desire. (and if she's really ambitious and-or lucky she can sneak back in and loot her fallen comrades before heading back to town, boosting her wealth considerably - wealth she's under no obligation to share with anyone)

IME, while this turnover does happen it never happens this quickly; the deaths and replacements are one or two at a time over a series of adventures, and over the long run the coward becomes both the wealthiest (it's nearly unavoidable) and the longest-serving - meaning she's made herself the star in that most of the story continuity is going to end up going through her.

Lanefan
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Then altering the INABILITY TO FLY AFTER THE FACT is also cheating. You can't have it both ways. Either altering something after the fact is cheating, or it isn't.
Er...while I pretty much agree with your general stance, Max, I think you're comparing apples and oranges on this one.

An in-game event that changes something within the game is simply part of the game. Human Lanefan casting a Fly spell on Human Maxperson who can't normally fly gets Maxie in the air, as that's how the spell works and what the spell does.

A legal game-mechanical event that changes something (e.g. a successful confirm roll turning a normal-hit 20 into a crit) is also simply a part of how the game works: after the fact it's being determined that this particular hit causes more harm to the victim than usual.

An illegal game mechanical event that changes something (e.g. a player rolling a 5 to hit but declaring the die says 15) is cheating. Ditto a player whose character bangs off seven 3rd-level spells in a day despite only having three 3rd-level slots and none higher.

The only debate is whether a DM is bound by the same game-mechanical event rules as the players are, to which the answer - at least in D&D - seems to be a more or less unified "no" across most of the editions thus far, at least when (and in some cases only when) it comes to rolling dice.

Lanefan
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top