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?

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?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
YES IT IS. Good grief, this is the third time I've answered this question.

If you are changing the results of a random generation AFTER THE FACT, then it's cheating. How is it not? This would be called cheating in every single other circumstance.

You can repeat that until you are blue in the face and you still won't be correct. Engaging a rule, even one that changes or breaks other rules, is not cheating. It never has been. It never will be. Or do you really think that you've been a cheater every time you play checkers and your King breaks the rules by moving backwards?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Which is the reason he's spent more time on my ignore list than any other person on the forums by at least a factor of 3. I do clean out my list every month or two, but he's definitely a repeat visitor.

Which only speaks to how passionate he is about what he's talking about. It's a credit to him; but when we're on opposite sides of a discussion, I'm far better off not seeing his stuff as I can be just as passionate about logic.

Yes, he's passionate. If he just didn't invent new definitions, ignore things that are written, and put down other styles, he'd have a lot more success in discussions. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has a lot of very interesting ideas that I'd love to see discussed, but when he engages those tactics he self-destructs his own posts and threads. People will argue strongly against things that are obviously wrong. I really wish that he would just present his ideas straight up.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Doesn't Inspiration confer Advantage? As in, you roll 2d20 at the same time and take the higher of the two results?

That seems like a different dice mechanic from rolling a 20 on a d20 and then getting the option for a critical hit if you make a second successful roll.

That would be cheating by the logic you and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] are using. The rule is to roll 1 d20 only, so using a second d20 would be cheating as it breaks the rules.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
I cheat from time to time. Or, to use your vernacular, I fudge from time to time. Rarely, but, it is done.

I just don't try to pretend that it's something that it isn't.

Gawd man, get hold of yourself! Dont say that, they will come for your DM card!
 

Hussar

Legend
Because you’ve said that an Inspiration die is cheating. Which is the exact same mechanic as confirming a critical.

It’s a critical, wait, not it’s not.

It’s a hit, wait no it’s not.

Am I missing something?

Actually yeah. I think I got ahead of myself. I forgot that inspiration isn’t a reroll. My bad. We tend to use it as a reroll and I got my house rules mixed in.

Heck, for a long time we used the fighter defense style as a reroll too.

Yup. We cheat. :)
 

Hussar

Legend
Rules, even rules that break other rules, are not cheating. By the logic you and @Hussar are using, a human wizard who casts fly on himself has a cheater for a player. The rules are that humans can't fly, and according to you guys, engaging rules that break other rules is cheating. So is a fighter using power attack or great weapon master. The rules are that you do weapon damage plus strength bonus as your damage. Breaking that rule by lowering your to hit and raising your damage is cheating.

The two of you have rendered cheating meaningless with the logic you are using.

Show me the rule that states humans can’t fly.

If we want to play silly buggers pedantic games.

And again, what post hoc change is being made by casting fly? How is casting fly fudging?
 

pemerton

Legend
I've seen it from certain players even in an xp-based system, and it annoys me to no end particularly when my character is the one who ends up dying because of it.

Milestones or auto-levelling would only make it worse.

The achieve-your-goal bit sounds good. The embrace-your-character-aspect bit worries me in that it comes down to DM judgement, much like 1e's (rather awful) business where the DM has to determine how well you played your character through each level. Wide open to favouritism and argument. Bad design.
This is another of those cases where I want to ask, have you actually played or even read the rules for the game you're talking about?

And do you have any actual evidence?

Have you played 4e? Or played with the sort of "milestone" systems [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is talking about? If not, how do you know what affect those games and those systems have on player behaviour?

Do you know how Dungeon World awards XP for "embracing an aspect of one's character"? Here is the relevant text (from p 78 of the rulebook):

End of Session
When you reach the end of a session, choose one of your bonds that you feel is resolved (completely explored, no longer relevant, or otherwise). Ask the player of the character you have the bond with if they agree. If they do, mark XP and write a new bond with whomever you wish.

Once bonds have been updated look at your alignment. If you fulfilled that alignment at least once this session, mark XP. Then answer these three questions as a group:

• Did we learn something new and important about the world?
• Did we overcome a notable monster or enemy?
• Did we loot a memorable treasure?

For each “yes” answer everyone marks XP.​

No favouritism. No GM discretion required. And (with respect to bond XP) a strong incentive to character-focused interaction between players so as to reach mutual agreement that bonds are being fully explored and resolved.

There are RPGs out there which are more than just rehashes of Gygax's D&D with slightly differnt dice rolling conventions.

So in each case the default assumption is that they will try to progress through the levels; with the major difference being likelihood of success.
No. In 4e there is no default assumption that players will try to progress through levels. It's not something you have to try to do; it's a side effect of playing the game. Likewise AD&D no one has to try to make gametime pass - the marking off of turns, hours and days is something the GM does as part of the course of play.

From the 4e modules etc. I've run I don't see it as specifically incentivizing the gonzo
I'm talking about PC build.

4e as written is not such a system. I don't believe in plot-protection or system-protection of PCs - if the PCs can kill the monsters then the monsters have to have a chance of killing the PCs, otherwise a bunch of things - immersion, realism, believability to name a few - go right out the window.

<snip>

As written it is a survival game. In every published module there's monsters and traps and big set-piece encounters that are, in the end, trying to kill off the PCs; and that 4e maybe gives the PCs an overall better chance of surviving each of these doesn't mean survival isn't a goal.

<snip>

I'm more talking about the player who is just as engaged in the game as everyone else but who actively plays their character out of harm's way at every opportunity, leaving others to take the heat.
Have you played 4e? Have you undertaken a systematic consideration of how the system works?

The goal in 4e is not survival. The goal is to impact the fiction. Player characters have an extreme depth of resources for both survival purposes (healing surges, and various abilities to unlock them) and active purposes (skill bonuses, various powers, etc). Expending the former is simply a means to an end.

And those healing surges etc are not evenly allocated. The game assumes that some PCs will "take the heat" and other won't. If a player wants to play a character who doesn't "take the heat", then s/he builds a rogue or a ranger (of a certain sort) or a wizard. But someone who builds (say) a fighter or a warlord or a paladin and then tries to avoid "taking the heat" is just dealing him-/herself out of the game.

Not to mention, that a big part of both the encounter design in 4e, and the mechanical design of opponents (both monsters/NPCs and traps/hazards), is to allow the GM to bring the heat to the players. And then the players themselves have resources to respond to that, to defend one another if they want to, or to expose others to risk if they want to.

My point is that if four players at the table want to embrace the gonzo while one player keeps their character back, and yet all get the same xp or milestones all the time, the cautious player's PC will in the end survive longer, become wealthier, and - if the DM allows such - become higher level than everyone else; simply because attrition has caught up with the others.
Less important point: that person will not become higher level than everyone else. The default in 4e is that everyone is the same level.

More important point, and reiteration: if, in 4e, I want to play a "cautious character" then I just build one. A rogue or ranger would be a good start, or certain sorts of warlock. But the play of the game is not going to make me safer than anyone else. Caution is an aspect of PC colour and personality and method, not a power-gaming tactic. Which goes back to the point that not all RPGs are wargames.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Show me the rule that states humans can’t fly.

It's right there in black and white. They have a land speed, but no fly speed.

If we want to play silly buggers pedantic games.

And again, what post hoc change is being made by casting fly? How is casting fly fudging?

It's not pedantic. It's your logic. Altering or breaking a rule with another rule is cheating. You don't get to cherry pick which rules that break other rules are cheating. All are, or none are.
 

Aldarc

Legend
By the logic you and @Hussar are using,...

The two of you have rendered cheating meaningless with the logic you are using.
That would be cheating by the logic you and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] are using. The rule is to roll 1 d20 only, so using a second d20 would be cheating as it breaks the rules.
Any argument or counterargument that appeals to the buzzwords "by your logic" is a red flag that tells where the argumentative fallacy where to land. There are much better ways of arguing and debating than falling back on "by your logic" points that attempt to rudely misconstrue the reasoning of others. So remember that every time you say "by your logic," your inane reasoning kill an innocent kitten.

Not quite sure how this works. Does the character who gets involved in every combat get more of these milestone rewards than the character who stays back and does little or nothing (all other things being equal)? If yes, then fine. If no, still has problems.
Pemerton has addressed some of my points already. So I will just focus on some of the other ones.

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. Does that mean that characters will shy away from combat? For your groups? Maybe. In my actual experience running Fate? Hell no!

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.

Interesting. The xp could still be varied, though, based on who contributed what toward making each discovery - though this might come down to DM judgement again, depending how it was implemented.
(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.

(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.

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.

The general rule of thumb that I have often seen floated among GMs of Numenera online is that players should be saving only half of their XP and actually be spending the other half. I have not looked too closely into Numenera 2, which has just been released within the past 2 two weeks, about whether this issue gets addressed.

One word answer for that: granularity. One baboon might be worth 10 xp but the next one, a bit weaker, might only be worth 8. A particularly tough one might be worth 23.

Where you really need the granularity in xp is at the very low levels. At later levels, whether a Hill Giant is worth 2350 xp or 2400 xp - who really cares. But at 1st level, whether an Orc is worth 22 xp or 26 xp can, in not too long, add up to a significant difference.
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? Nigel Tufnel: "...but these [baboons] go to 23 XP."
 

pemerton

Legend
Part of it entails, or so I imagine, a growing recognition of the extenuating circumstances of play in the randomization element of die resolution mechanics. If the game was designed with the expectation that the randomness of the die result should result in the PCs succeeding 70 percent of the time, but the players' die results actually generate a 30 percent success rate (or lower), then that can throw a giant wrench into how smoothly the game runs. And so we are dealing with decades of mechanics and rules about how to patch or autocorrect this design flaw/feature. And clearly many people are happy in this thread with the answer that props up their own power and authority: "DM, DM über alles, über alles in dem Spiel..."
To build on what you've posted: I think it's directly connected to the question of whether the game is a wargame, or something else in which story and character are more prominent.

In a wargame, 30% success rates, and hard failures, are acceptable. If you lose, then you lose - and reset the board and try again, using the experience you've gained to improve your odds by playing the ficton better, using better tactics, etc.

But if the focus of play is character and/or story, then 30% success rates and hard failures lead to total fiasco, as story fails to develop, characters are not heroes we might admire but hopeless bumblers, etc.

One mode of mitigation is to change the success rates: 4e does this by reworking the maths. Another is to eliminate hard failures: Burning Wheel does this, via "fail forward". Another is just to punt it all to the GM, who manipulates outcomes and consequences as necessary to generate story, appropriately foreground the PCs, etc - 2nd ed AD&D does this, as do many other games of that era and played in that style.

If the primary justification GMs make for fudging is for the sake of the players' jollies - to prevent an untimely death, unhappy string of bad luck rolls, etc - why can't some of this "fudging power" become apportioned to players instead such that they can decide when it serves their own jollies when it pertains to their character? As I have also said as much before somewhere in the first half of this thread where I noted that I have encountered less cheating from players in systems that provide "mechanisms for the player to not only positively influence the story in their favor but also to mitigate harmful circumstances produced by botched rolls or the GM's narrative framing."
They don't serve quite the same purpose as fudging, nor have the same foundation in the privileged role of GM. They do let the player override a result in the name of fun (where fun is equated to success, anyway), but they do so within the rules. Fudging is the GM saving the game from itself. When the rules fail, the GM prevails.
The notion of "the privileged role of GM", and also of "the GM saving the game from itself" because "the rules fail", are symptomatic (in my view) of a certain approach to D&D, and especially AD&D, that - whenver it first began (I would guess in the mid-through-late 70s) - had become mainstream, perhaps predominant, by the early 80s.

The privileged role of GM in a dungeoneering, "skilled play" wargame of the sort set out (incompletely) in the original D&D books, and then set out and advocated for by Gygax in the AD&D books, is in establishing the fiction (ie the players have no authority over the dungeon map or its contents), adjudicating the fiction (ie the GM is the one who decides whether you can surf doors removed from their hinges down the frictionless corridor in WPM, thereby avoiding the super-tetanus pits) and - if necessary - establishing the die roll needed for success where the rules themselves provide no obvious or applicable answer (eg maybe the answer to the door-surfing question is "Yes, provided you roll less than 20+3*DEX on percentile dice"). A further thing which is really a combination of the second and third is imposing adjustments to rule-mandated checks where the fiction suggests they should apply (eg if a Ring of Fire Resistance grants +4 to save vs fireballs and the like, then standing chin-deep in water should give at least a +2).

But when the focus turns to story/character, this extent control over the fiction fairly naturally bleeds into a control over scene-framing, over outcomes (you can't pre-plan scene framing if you don't control outcomes to some extent), etc. That leads to a "golden rule"-style imperative to fudge.

At the same time, there is a reasonable expectation that in a character-focused game characters won't die too often. But the wargame rules produce quite a bit of PC death, especially at low levels. So we get the need to "save the game from itself" - again, we see a "golden rule"-style imperative to fudge.

None of this is part of any "natural" theory of the role of the GM. I think it's the result of a widespread, perhaps predominant mode of play within the context of the dominant ruleset.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top