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

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
You seem to be more tolerant than most and that is fine for your table. To me that gives off the impression that anything goes ...

Okay, just to demonstrate how wrong this is in terms of its logic.

"You are more tolerant than me, there fore ANYTHING GOES.."

Is logically equivalent to

"If a mother is willing to look the other way when you sneak a cookie when you think she's not looking, she's okay with you hitting your sister with a baseball bat"

or

"The cop didn't stop you from speeding, therefore, he'll let you murder people too."

Being more tolerant than you DOES NOT imply tolerance of everything. How about you back off on the strawman, hm?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
Okay, just to demonstrate how wrong this is in terms of its logic.

"You are more tolerant than me, there fore ANYTHING GOES.."

Is logically equivalent to

"If a mother is willing to look the other way when you sneak a cookie when you think she's not looking, she's okay with you hitting your sister with a baseball bat"

or

"The cop didn't stop you from speeding, therefore, he'll let you murder people too."

Being more tolerant than you DOES NOT imply tolerance of everything. How about you back off on the strawman, hm?

I hear what you're saying Umbran - but I think it's fair to say that there was the context of "pertaining to your DMing a game" that Sadras was operating within.

It's also logical to not push context to life and death situations when debating your position. Too many other threads do this and it takes them far afield from the rails.

Not defending Sadras's position but I usually reply like this when things seem too escalated.

Thanks,
KB
 

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
This would make an interesting poll. Officially can a DM cheat?

The online definition of cheating:
1. act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.
2. avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill.

In (1), one might ask what advantage might the DM gain. Well DM's that act as the one described by @Imaculata tend to enjoy a DM-vs-player style and so there is room to say that cheating or fudging (whichever you prefer) provides an advantage to the DM in that roleplaying style.

In (2), many DM's technically cheat or fudge to avoid undesirable outcomes for the table (whether it be to spare a PC or prolong an epic combat...etc).

However having said all that, the DM has the power to change/amend any rule of the game AND at any time. So can he really cheat?

I'm not really asking you Max, just musing and upping my post count. :)

EDIT: Wait, I got it,

CAN GOD CHEAT?


There's no poll to be had out of this. Rule 0 makes the DM arbiter of all things above the rules themselves. Therefore no, they can't cheat.

What they can do is create an environment where people can have fun, or not.

If the former, they'll have a long run. If the latter, it'll be over soon. It self moderates.

KB
 

Sadras

Legend
Okay, just to demonstrate how wrong this is in terms of its logic.

"You are more tolerant than me, there fore ANYTHING GOES.."

Is logically equivalent to

"If a mother is willing to look the other way when you sneak a cookie when you think she's not looking, she's okay with you hitting your sister with a baseball bat"

or

"The cop didn't stop you from speeding, therefore, he'll let you murder people too."

Being more tolerant than you DOES NOT imply tolerance of everything. How about you back off on the strawman, hm?

How about you quote the rest of my sentence or does it not work for your strawman?
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
How about you quote the rest of my sentence or does it not work for your strawman?

It isn't a strawman. It is a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the point of logic.

Now, not everything is about logic. But, here it does apply - saying "if you are more tolerant than me, then ANYTHING GOES" is simply not logically sound.

If you don't like how I put it, fine. Ignore the previous post. Consider it retracted.

But you should address this: how does "more tolerant than me" imply "anything goes"? If you don't address that, you are in the situation of complaining about what I did to your point, right after you did something very similar to his point. And that's not a good look for you.

(Edited a bit for clarity of the issue)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sadras

Legend
It isn't a strawman. It is a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the point of logic.

Now, not everything is about logic. But, here it does apply - saying "if you are more tolerant than me, then ANYTHING GOES" is simply not logically sound.

If you don't like how I put it, fine. Ignore the previous post. Consider it retracted.

But you should address this: how does "more tolerant than me" imply "anything goes"?

I'll wait.

Perhaps in other situations I would agree with you but in this instance the poster has also said:

Out of all the issues to kick someone out of a tabletop gaming group, this one seems kinda miniscule and despite cheating the game continues swimmingly

This implies to me a poster who does not place any value on cheating, ANY CHEATING during a game. .i.e. anything goes within the REALMS OF CHEATING (I did mention this is my original post).

You cannot compare stealing cookies (mom forgiving theft/DM forgiving cheating) and a baseball bat to sister's face (mom forgiving violence/DM forgiving violence). I do not see how you can possibly equate the two.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Aldarc

Legend
So, how does that fly in the face of the surveying behind the OP?

Did they lie about their survey results? Did they somehow just happen to choose a population in which lots of cheating happens, but that population is not representative? Have times changed, so that the results are no longer relevant? Are people hypocrites, and everyone cheats, but nobody is okay with anyone *else* cheating? Or, do you simply choose to believe what you believe, despite contrary evidence? Something else?

Any statement of what "the real majority" thinks has to deal with the survey results.
Several points.

1) The book in question - Shared Fantasy - was first published in 1982. (2002 is the year of the paperback reprinted edition.) So the results are not necessarily reflective of the contemporaneous gaming but of the time of the book's publication. Am I therefore suggesting that people cheat less nowadays? Hell no. But the survey results should be appropriately contextualized in the gaming climate in which it was produced. So I would be curious to see how this has changed, and ideally throughout multiple editions of D&D but that may be a pipedream.

2) It is worth considering cheating in the context of D&D's gaming culture. Reading through the book the OP linked on Google Books has been fascinating due to rationalization of normalized cheating. There are presumed sets of behaviors around cheating, honesty, and dice rolls. When is it acceptable? When is it not? Regardless of how anyone in this thread feels about it, the author's interviewees give the impression that cheating is sometimes regarded as necessary and that there are implicit limits of acceptable cheating. Any notion of the game's "integrity" is a minor footnote here. Instead, there is a recurring motif in this section of cheating for the necessity of PC survival or mitigating terrible effects that pertain to the player character. This picques my interest. Does the nature of the game encourage cheating? Does the nature and frequency of cheating vary in other games? I find it too dismissive or easy of an explanation that cheating is only done by immoral people. I suspect that D&D fosters an attitude of "winning the game." A first person miniature wargame. My character must survive. My character must succeed. Play to win. Survive to win. Defeat the stuff and take their stuff.

I for one have experienced consistently lower rates of cheating, for example, when playing indie games such as Fate, Dungeon World, and Cypher System than I do with D&D. And it almost seems obvious why, at least when it comes to Fate. There are 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. You can reroll. You can improve the dice results. There are ways to succeed when you fail the roll. You can potentially reject the GM's proposed narrative that affects an aspect of your character.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Perhaps in other situations I would agree with you but in this instance the poster has also said:

Out of all the issues to kick someone out of a tabletop gaming group, this one seems kinda miniscule and despite cheating the game continues swimmingly

This implies to me a poster who does not place any value on cheating, ANY CHEATING during a game. .i.e. anything goes within the REALMS OF CHEATING (I did mention this is my original post).

You cannot compare stealing cookies (mom forgiving theft/DM forgiving cheating) and a baseball bat to sister's face (mom forgiving violence/DM forgiving violence). I do not see how you can possibly equate the two.
I would strongly encourage that you reconsider stating what you think is implied about this poster's values based upon your own assumptions before I explicitly tell the mods what I think about what yours.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Les Moore

Explorer
The DM's role, of and by itself, is arbitrary, to begin with.

Case in point, I ask a Rogue with a high DEX to do a skill check to scale a steep hillside in the dark in the rain. I don't
tell him the minimum roll I will accept, because I'm looking at it as a pass/fail situation, which he has a better than even
chance of, at succeeding. He doesn't know I'm looking for at least a 10 on a roll of a D20. If he rolls a 9, and I say
"you made it", is that cheating? If he rolls an 8, and I say "you made it, but lost your dagger, and split open your boot
during the climb", is that cheating?

There is a special D&D game, for folks who want to stick to RAW, with no compromises.

It's called Chess...
 

Yes, of course GMs can cheat.

There are lots and lots of games that put ”don’t cheat” explicitly in their game text. They go on to explain why it’s a problem and why it’s wholly unnecessary for that/those games (because they work without need for application of GM Force).

Other games that skirt the issue or are ambivalent it milquetoast leave it up to social contract (though in their text they may have some commentary on the implications of cheating). And divining that is pretty simple:

If players expect to have autonomy over their decision-points and expect the formula of their action declarations + application of resolution mechanics = unmediated outcomes (therefore play/story trajectory)...and their decision-points suddenly aren’t autonomous (because of the covert application of one kind of Force or another like a classic post-hoc “block”) and the outcomes of their declared actions are covertly GM-mediated (eg applying Force in the way of shifting target numbers)...

That is cheating as a GM.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top