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?

 

[Imaculata]

Since fudging is generally secret, the players can't judge = see above point.

I think the players may still be able to notice when the DM is fudging, despite it being done in secret.

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.

If that is the case, again, why do it in secret? I still feel that you didn't answer that crucial element of the question. Is the intention here to lie to the players, and make them feel like they had a stroke of luck, when in fact they didn't?

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Isn't Rule 0 considered a separate, albeit related, issue distinct from "fudging the dice"?

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.

Where? The word "cheat" only occurs once in the 5E DMG in a villain NPC table (p. 95). The dice-rolling section (p. 235) does not prohibit players from cheating. It just suggests that if a player is engaging in behavior like scooping the dice before anyone can see them, to encourage as the GM that they be less secretive. Do note that this not a rules prohibition against cheating. Hell, right above it, the DMG says "Have Snacks," which makes that more of an explicit rule than "no cheating" for 5E.

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.

You raise some good points in your later post. My preference here though is for some degree of consistency between the player and gamemaster. Either GM and players can't fudge or GM and players can fudge (both within reason). I'm not a fan, however, of accusing players of cheating as a negative while also saying that "the GM can't cheat" but that they can fudge because that is intended as a positive. It strikes me as an absurd and somewhat hypocritical double-standard: "It's cool when law enforcement breaks the law when it's done for 'the greater good,' but there will be hell to pay if any other regular citizen breaks the law, no matter the infraction."

Why can't players "fudge" dice to maximize their fun?
- Because then the victory is not earned: But then how does it become earned when the GM fudges?
- Because it benefits only the player but not the group: Is that necessarily true? Can a player not fudge their roll for the sake of the group's fun? Does the GM fudging always benefit the group or is not often meant to benefit particular players?
- Because it benefits the character and not the player: Yeah, but the player is playing the character and if the player is not having fun because of a bad string of luck regarding said character, then how meaningful is this distinction? And why can't a player have a certain latitude of authority over "fudging" that affects their character and personal fun? And is this not the GM implicitly communicating then that they know what's best for the player's fun?
- Because they are not authorized to do so: still waiting for this one.

As I said much earlier, I have experienced less cheating in games when the game system mechanics empower the players to have a degree of personal authority over the narrative situations where cheating often occurs and possess ways to curtail failure at critical points: what we may paradoxically call "authorized cheating." Fate, for example, has fate points with a variety of uses (e.g., re-roll, +2 bonus to roll, declare a story detail, etc.) and succeed-at-a-cost mechanics. These mechanics provide less incentive for cheating, because they essentially accomplish the greater control of agency that often spurs the cheating. I can take the same set of players and see less cheating in Fate than I would in D&D. I am not claiming that this makes Fate a better game than D&D, but I do think that cultural norms do develop around how games are played that is partially rooted in their associated mechanics.

If the mechanical effectiveness of your character is rooted in rolling for stats, there is a potential incentive to fudge your rolls. If your character concept is dependent on how well you roll your stats, then you have a potential incentive to fudge your rolls. And so on... I imagine that it would be a non-controversial argument if I were to put forth that cheating likely occurs at a lower frequency in D&D games that use standard arrays or point buys than in dice-rolling methods.

 

[Imaculata]

As I said much earlier, I have experienced less cheating in games when the game system mechanics empower the players to have a degree of personal authority over the narrative situations where cheating often occurs and possess ways to curtail failure at critical points:

As a side note, I am working on a board game in which the players can 'save' one of their die results to use it for a later check. This is to (as you say) give the players more control over the outcome of a check, and prevent failure with a game mechanic.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I think the players may still be able to notice when the DM is fudging, despite it being done in secret.

If that is the case, again, why do it in secret? I still feel that you didn't answer that crucial element of the question. Is the intention here to lie to the players, and make them feel like they had a stroke of luck, when in fact they didn't?

I feel I answered it rather well and you're simply trying to back me in to an answer that suits a sound or text byte.

Answering this fully and with my personal process and bias so you have context. (Note, I'm not a big fan of overly personal posts, but in this case I fear it's somewhat necessary)

1. I am a rare mix of psych/history/performance/math background. It influences my opinion of what makes good DM practice.
2. I have run LARP events and have had to run table RPGs with up to 15 players at a go over the course of a year long campaign.

The above two things force a certain level of organization and planning as well as functions that don't go in to a game with four people that runs infrequently. That doesn't mean my average game is that large, but it does mean that tools I use to manage insanely large games get used for small ones to allow them to scale, as about half the time the small one off game that I run ends up growing into something crazy.

So for me:
a. Players get a campaign abstract when I ask them if they want to play. IF YES
b. Players get a campaign primer that details at a high level
- Setting
- House Rules
- Social Contract - where things like dice rolling and general statement about DM priorities live; as well as where we're playing and any social stuff to be mindful of (18+, drinking etc.)

c. I ask for and receive feedback prior to game start, if I can make edits to suit the people who want to join, I do. If I can't, they opt out.


3. For a long running game I'll make sure I have a one on one fireside or coffee house or skype chat with each player at least once a month to make sure things are going well and sort of map out any plot they want to run. If someone is fine with dying I know this, as well as any likes or dislikes and I manage it appropriately.

Why does this matter at all? Because my practices flavor the answer to your question regarding intention at my table or virtual table. My experience is that much of this stuff is hand waved by other DMs I've played with. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt.

So now for the answer. - The intention is to provide the players with the level of challenge they are expecting and the type of game they are expecting when they show up. When I know that a behind the screen fudge is exactly what's needed, I do it. When I know that a hard interpretation of the rules is what's needed, I do it. The goal is to keep the group together and happy because my reputation as a DM (and really, my friendships) are affected when I don't do this.

Hopefully this helps, and if I've misinterpreted your intentions, you have my apologies for the length of this post and my assumption.

Thanks,
KB

(edit - so yes, if a player is going to be bothered if a stroke of luck unwinds a well crafted plot point, I will fudge. If the player is not going to be bothered and will find a plot twist interesting, I won't.)

(second edit - fixing the grammar and location of text so the post makes sense. Completely fubared one of the points.)

 

[Imaculata]

So now for the answer. - The intention is to provide the players with the level of challenge they are expecting and the type of game they are expecting when they show up. When I know that a behind the screen fudge is exactly what's needed, I do it. When I know that a hard interpretation of the rules is what's needed, I do it. The goal is to keep the group together and happy because my reputation as a DM (and really, my friendships) are affected when I don't do this.

Hopefully this helps, and if I've misinterpreted your intentions, you have my apologies for the length of this post and my assumption.

That was a very wordy response, but I feel it still didn't quite answer my question. You've explained why you sometimes fudge. Fine.

But why in secret? Who not do it out in the open?

 

[Kobold Boots]

That was a very wordy response, but I feel it still didn't quite answer my question. You've explained why you sometimes fudge. Fine.

But why in secret? Who not do it out in the open?

Because sometimes you don't want to know. Any time you tell war stories about gaming you always hear.. "Hey remember the time we went up against X in KB's game and it was hard but we overcame it because Joe did something really unexpected and cool and it paid off.. laugh/chuckle.. did you see the look on his face.. "

You never hear.. "Hey remember the time when we went up against X in KB's game good thing he fudged the roll.. "

I find an important rule of DMing to be. Never, ever, no matter how much you might want to, take the cool factor away from your players and their actions. At every tier they should be able to do cool things of appropriate scale. (edit - and many times over the years the dice may not allow you the off the cuff epic story that makes everyone feel good.)

 

[Arilyn]

GMs, like bards, are not paid to tell the truth.

 

[kenmarable]

You raise some good points in your later post. My preference here though is for some degree of consistency between the player and gamemaster.

(snipping some good stuff, but I'm already WAY too wordy, I need to shorten the quote)

The issue of a possible double-standard is good one.
For me, there seems to be two relevant pieces. One, it comes down to what I said earlier that it all depends on what the entire group would think if they knew.

Maybe I’m in the minority here, but in my groups that have DM fudging, we are open about it. We don’t keep it secret. Usually not to the level of announcing every fudged roll, but we have never had a group with a fudging DM where the players weren’t aware that DM fudging might occur, and sometimes when it happens it was even openly announced. A good example would be with character death without easy means of revival (less of an issue more recent editions, but sometimes circumstances prevent even death saves):

• I’ve played in groups where character death was no big deal, and the player just sits out and rolls up a new PC and waits until they can get back in. Groups that are more focused towards the challenge side of RPGs are more likely to be like this. Knowing they succeeded at the challenge due to fudged rolls would be disappointing (and therefore not maximizing the fun, so fudging shouldn’t happen).
  
• I have also played in groups where if a character dies and the player has to sit out the action for a while, that’s the worst possible outcome and should be avoided even if it means ignoring rules or rolls. In my experience this can be everything from making a crit into a non-crit, saying another PC has enough movement/actions to get there in time to rescue even if they don’t, or even once or twice retroactively saying they attacked someone else (although that is very rare). In nearly all of those kinds of cases, we are actually open about the bending of rules to allow it – whether it is ignoring the result of a die roll (“Wow, that should have critted, but I’ll make it a normal hit.”) or allowing something to work that shouldn’t or retroactively changing an action, etc.. Groups with this amount of fudging tend to be ones more interested in the escapism and heroics than the challenge and actually appreciate DM fudging. (“Thanks for not killing me there. That would’ve sucked!”)

So it really depends on the group, and if the DM doesn’t feel comfortably telling the players they might fudge some things to keep it fun, then, yes, that is a problem. If you can’t be open about it (at least in general if not at each instance), then I agree that it shouldn’t be happening. I also disagree that RAW state DM’s can fudge (but they should pretend not to so that the players don’t know). Maybe not at the level of each roll, but the players should definitely be aware if that sort of thing is happening in general.

But even if it is openly acknowledged, why are many groups comfortable with DM “fudging” but not player “cheating”?

The second piece is I think the different roles in the game. Players are in control of only their PC in that world. DMs, however, are basically in control of all of the rest of reality. There is a lot of trust and responsibility put into DMs to make it an interesting game and reality for everyone at the table. So if the bending of rules and rolls is acceptable at all, it makes some sense to leave that responsibility with the DM alone, since so much power over the game reality already rests there and it also avoids conflicting fudging by having only 1 person authorized to do that.

Even with decades of gaming, honestly, my experience is 95% D&D (and PF), so that’s what I’m most familiar with. Games that allow more player control of reality beyond their character sound interesting, but unfortunately a lot of people I game with don’t really want that control. *shrug* They, in a sense, are looking to be entertained by the DM in an interactive story. They want to be actors playing characters and let the DM be director and writer.

Although there has been some slight open fudging by players on rare occasion in my games. For example, it seems that players “accidentally only dropped the die and didn’t really roll it” only if the number is really bad. That results in a can-I-reroll look to the DM, and then the DM does an eyeroll and says whether to reroll it or not. That doesn’t happen often, but seeing as how it pretty much never happens when the number is good or the roll not important, yeah, I’d say there’s some slight player fudging happening, although again, it’s out in the open (and far, far rarer than DM fudging). This is different from a player we knew when we were young that would have 2 dice of the same color and would roll one but point to the other that he had put sitting there on 20. That seems to me to be a very different sort of thing, especially considering the element of deception and not wanting to be found out.

But overall, I think the inconsistency is more an issue of practicalness than principle. It's less "by the rules of this game 1 person gets to cheat and no one else can" as much as "some fudging makes the game more fun (for some groups) but it's less effective and can easily become a mess if everyone does it, so let's just leave it up to the DM, they already take care of everything else anyway."

If I was in a group where a player felt that inconsistency wasn't fair, that's perfectly valid and I'd be fine with making it consistent (likely by removing DM fudging since I think no-fudging would work FAR better than everyone-fudging in practice).

If the mechanical effectiveness of your character is rooted in rolling for stats, there is a potential incentive to fudge your rolls. If your character concept is dependent on how well you roll your stats, then you have a potential incentive to fudge your rolls. And so on... I imagine that it would be a non-controversial argument if I were to put forth that cheating likely occurs at a lower frequency in D&D games that use standard arrays or point buys than in dice-rolling methods.

But, it all comes down to what the group is comfortable with. Your comment about stats is a good one. Back when we first started in 1e, trying to get good stats was enough of an issue for us that there certainly was incentive to cheat/fudge rolls. So we instituted rolling in front of others, but also house ruled some things that were previously done secretly like “you can throw away an entire set of 6 stats if they are bad” to codify as acceptable to the group. (And if someone wanted to keep rerolling and throwing out sets over and over to try and get a great one, he had to do it in front of us where we could mock him if he was overdoing it.) We also even introduced “Reroll 1’s and 2’s” for stats and hit points at the behest of a couple players since we all were fine with everyone using it. Again, for us, it’s been about being open with the entire group about this sort of thing rather than keeping it secret that makes it acceptable.


(Yikes! Sorry about the wall of text! Added some formatting to help break it up, but I understand if you just scroll by. Although that means you probably didn't read this. Hmm.)

 

[Kobold Boots]

GMs, like bards, are not paid to tell the truth.

If I could give you a million XP for this post, I would.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Actually kitbashing isn't really a comparable here, in that it's something (usually) done before play even begins in a campaign; as opposed to fudging/cheating which can really only occur during the run of play.