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 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?

 

[Maxperson]

But surely the DM can also fudge in a way that is negative to the players? What if I want a boss to be extra tough, so I tell a player they missed, when in fact they hit?

That's not a negative. When the DM is doing that, he's doing it to make the fight more exciting for them, not to kill them off. More excitement is good for the players, even if it's slightly worse for the PC in question.

And how do you determine whether this type of fudging is positive or negative to the players?

Motive is a big one. If you're turning a yawn fight into one that is more fun for them, it's a positive. If you're just making them miss because you want the bad guy to win, it's a negative. It's pretty easy for the DM to know which is which in the moment. He can see his players reactions to how the fight is going and easily adjust things to make it better for them.

 

[Aldarc]

Fudging is always positive for the players, or at least intended to be so. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be fudging. It would be DM abuse of power.

This post is sophist double-speak. This is what I meant earlier about the meaning of "fudging" outside of the context of gaming. It's finangling the GM off-the-hook for cheating by determining acceptable parameters to lie or report falsehoods.

And the position that fudging is always intended to be positive for the players is laughable. But thankfully you fudge that implication by retreating back to the usual "bad DM" scapegoat.

Players cannot fudge by the way. They have no authority to do so unless the DM gives it to them. They are cheating if they alter a die roll outside of some PC ability/feat/spell to do so.

Find me that rule.

 

[Maxperson]

I'll also add that I don't fudge PC hits into misses. If I'm going to fudge something, it will be my die rolls or I occasionally will add hit points to the BBEG to make it more exciting. My response above was a general response about fudging using your example.

 

[Maxperson]

This post is sophist double-speak. This is what I meant earlier about the meaning of "fudging" outside of the context of gaming. It's finangling the GM off-the-hook for cheating by determining acceptable parameters to lie or report falsehoods.

And the position that fudging is always intended to be positive for the players is laughable. But thankfully you fudge that implication by retreating back to the usual "bad DM" scapegoat.

Find me that rule.

Nah. You just called me a liar and a cheater. I don't think I'm going to do the work to help you out.

 

[Imaculata]

Nah. You just called me a liar and a cheater. I don't think I'm going to do the work to help you out.

I don't think he did. I think what he's saying, is that you are describing the rules in such a way that you set up situations in which DM-cheating is allowed to fit your own position, which the rules do not.

 

[Aldarc]

Nah. You just called me a liar and a cheater. I don't think I'm going to do the work to help you out.

I said that you were fudging your words, and you have already admitted to fudging in your games. It seems then that you are tacitly agreeing here that the term "fudging" describes negative actions and behaviors.

I am confused though how you would be helping me out if you found this rule. Wouldn't you be helping yourself out and your case by finding it?

 

[kenmarable]

This is not what the discussion is about.

A lot of it is starting to sound pretty accusatory that those who are fine with DM fudging are bad and wrong.

However, I've also found it amusing to see more accusations of "sophistry" in this thread than in my philosophy classes.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think he did. I think what he's saying, is that you are describing the rules in such a way that you set up situations in which DM-cheating is allowed to fit your own position, which the rules do not.

The rules absolutely do and they've been pointed out. Rule 0, which is a rule, gives the DM(not the players) the ability to add, subtract or change rules as he sees fit. There are sections in the DMG about player(not DM) cheating. It's crystal clear who has the power to alter rules, and outside of some sort of ability or spell, the players don't have any authority to alter dice without it being cheating. The DM, though, cannot cheat since he does have the power to alter anything at any time.

@Aldarc was absolutely calling me a liar and a cheat with that wording. If he meant anything else, it's on him to change those words and apologize.

 

[Kobold Boots]

It’s not cheating if it’s fun? Fun for who? And how do we measure that? Since fudging is generally secret, the players can’t judge.

Note, kit bashing is another kettle of fish. That’s above board and tacitly agreed upon by all participants.

If fudging isn’t cheating then why do dms keep it secret?

Hi Hussar -

Seems to me like you're over thinking this.

How do we measure if something is fun = The same people keep coming back to your table because you like having them there and they like being with you.

Since fudging is generally secret, the players can't judge = see above point. People won't spend time with you if they're not having fun. That's how they judge.

If fudging isn't cheating then why do DMs keep it secret = because they need the game to adapt to what they perceive the players at their table will find to be worth their time. Some players want the feeling of achievement and attribute that achievement to outcomes that are influenced by luck as well as skill. Sometimes luck goes the wrong way and it's a real downer for everyone at the table in certain circumstances but not all.

The first responsibility of any DM is to entertain the people that are giving him or her their time. Half of that is managing expectations and the other half is performance skill with the rules providing a framework.

You made a good point about rule 0 changing from edition to edition, but I can say from experience that regardless of what edition I've played or run at any point in time from the 80s on, that any game that didn't both entertain people and manage their expectations didn't last long. Ultimately that's what rule 0 allows and why DM's can't cheat. If what they're doing doesn't suit their group the game won't run.

Thanks,
KB

 

[kenmarable]

But surely the DM can also fudge in a way that is negative to the players? What if I want a boss to be extra tough, so I tell a player they missed, when in fact they hit?

And how do you determine whether this type of fudging is positive or negative to the players?

For one thing, I think there is an important distinction between what's good for the characters versus what's good for the players. Things that are very bad for the characters can make it fun for the players.

When DMs fudge in games I play in, it may be beneficial or harmful to the characters, but it should always (at least intended) be beneficial to the players in the sense of maximizing the fun. (And if it's just used by a DM to defeat the players in an adversarial sort of way, I'd lump that in with player cheating because it's looking to benefit the fun of only the one person and not the group as a whole.) Of course, it's a massively subjective judgement call when to use it and not use it, but DMing is full of massively subjective judgement calls to try and maximize everybody's fun. So that's nothing new. It's just another tool for a DM to use to make it more fun for everyone, but, of course, like any tool it can be overused or misused and some groups never want it used at all.