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


log in or register to remove this ad

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
Rule 0 differs by game system. Many don't have the Gygaxian one ("The GM can change the rules as he sees fit"); a smaller set have a very different one ("Don't be a dick"), and a few have a counter-gygaxian ("The group can change the rules by consensus")...

Many don't even mention a rule zero equivalent.

Of course, Gygax's Rule Zero was essential for dealing with the incoherent Gygaxian Spew that was AD&D 1E. Almost no one ran it RAW, because various important bits were buried as asides in entirely the wrong chapters.

Yes, but assuming we're talking about the current version (which if I'm referring to another, I'll generally mention that as it's not trivial) there is a Rule 0 and my post remains accurate.

Don't mean to blow off your post, just being clear as to my intent.
 

Les Moore

Explorer
Talking of character generation, how do people feel about players who like to "work the rules", looking for synergies or even holes in allowable options in order to maximise benefits, min/max stats etc to create a heavily optimised builds, as opposed to coming up with a character concept and then using the creation rules to flesh that out?

Is this a form of cheating? Are players trying to gain an advantage? Are they stretching the spirit of the game?

In my mind I don't like the idea of it, which is probably because the games my group play are much more biased towards a good story and adventure and thankfully no one does this. Online, I have seen many discussions around "optimal builds for.....". I guess in a more competitive style of game it is fine?

IME, many a player has worked the PHB and some others, in 3 and 3.5, seeking an advantage for their PC. IMO, if you discuss it with the DM before the game,
and it's OK with the party and DM, it's not cheating. If you wait till the middle of a crisis to spring some new or unknown surprise advantage, that's rules
lawyering, and disruptive to the game. Many players, myself included, look to build strong PCs, to have an advantage, and do a lot of research in the process.
It's not the research that's bad, it's improperly using and vetting the information thru the DM and party, that's "cheating".
 

Hussar

Legend
Simple - the DMs I play with do NOT keep it secret. If you don’t want it at your games, that’s fine. But if a group agrees amongst ourselves that it is acceptable we’re not suddenly having badwrongfun. Play the game how you like and let other groups play how they like.

Edit to add: In my games, DM fudging is also tacitly agreed upon by all participants. So why is it a different kettle of fish?

So, you announce die changes and fudging at the table before you do it? You flat out tell your players, "Hey, I just changed the AC of the monster so you couldn't hit it this time to increase difficulty"?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Yes, it absolutely is, and one that is near-fundamental to the method.

that said, I've played games with weak-GM - games where players can create/introduce encounters the GM must now run - and games with shared GMing (where GM of the moment rotates).

Both of those radically change the feel of the game.

I disagree. I double standard is a rule that is unfairly applied to different groups of people. None of those rules are applied to players at all. D&D simply has different roles in the game, and the DM can do things within his role that the players can't. That's not a double standard.
 

Emerikol

Adventurer
I never cheat, so this is a bit surprising to me. I never cheated as a player, and I have stopped fudging dice rolls as a DM in the last few years.

I feel that you rob yourself of fun by cheating. It takes away a lot of the excitement and drama that comes with failure. So I make it a point to always make my rolls out in the open, where everyone can witness my misfortune.

I'm like this guy. Fudging rolls by the DM though is technically not cheating as it is RAW in most editions of D&D. Dice are advisory to the DM's ultimate authority on everything happening in his campaign. I did realize though that it's better not to fudge the dice even as DM and let the chips fall where they may.
 

So, you announce die changes and fudging at the table before you do it? You flat out tell your players, "Hey, I just changed the AC of the monster so you couldn't hit it this time to increase difficulty"?

Maybe it's getting lost in all of the posts, but I tried to explain several times that we

1) are very open about the practice happening in general and do not hide it, and

2) yes, we actually will occasionally announce when we fudge things. I even listed specific examples earlier including announcing making a critical hit a non-critical and similar.

Would I announce increasing the AC? No, for a very simple reason - I wouldn't increase the AC. That's not a fudging I would do for likely the reason you think it's a gotcha question. The players would not be happy about it, especially if previous hits would now be misses which would also break immersion. If I want to draw a fight out and make it more challenging, it's far better to increase hit points rather than increasing AC. Requiring the PCs to have more successes to defeat an enemy is far more enjoyable than making them fail more often, but generally has the same practical effect. Even if we don't announce every single instance as it happens, we all know it will happen on occasion if it makes the game more fun. (And conversely, fights that are becoming a slog can have hit points be decreased on the fly.) We are are aware of it and are fine with it.

The only time I've ever adjusted AC on the fly is by lowering it by 1 if a frustrated player is having a bad night and misses by 1 (and others haven't already missed by 1).

Do you never adjust hit points from what's in the book? :)

Bottom line for us - if everyone at the table is fine with it, then it's acceptable. My group is fine with some DM fudging of certain numbers & rolls - announced in the moment when appropriate but not announced when not - and I'm not sure why that's confusing to people.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Do you never adjust hit points from what's in the book? :)
Constantly.

But always before the combat starts and most of the time before the opponent has ever been encountered. Once combat starts the hit points are locked in.

Lan-"and the adjustments are almost always to raise the total, as many 1e monsters as written have far too much glass in their cannons"-efan
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
The only time I've ever adjusted AC on the fly is by lowering it by 1 if a frustrated player is having a bad night and misses by 1 (and others haven't already missed by 1).

A nice compromise rule I've found here is to make such misses "glancing blows". Anything that is under by 1 point hits, but does half damage.

You could expand this rule of course to turn AC into a "range", granting bonus damage for every point above and reducing damage for every point below. Might be an interesting take on it....


....hadn't thought of that till now. Maybe:
Every 1 point below the target AC subtracts from the damage die of your weapon, if the total negatives equal the maximum your dice can roll, you deal no damage. Otherwise you roll and add your appropriate score, then subtract by how much you missed. For every point above the target number, you get a +1 to damage.

Could lead to certain characters (Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, Battle Clerics) never missing, but since that's pretty much their thing I could probably live with that.

Would also give less reason to hand out magic +X gear.

hmmmm.....
 

A nice compromise rule I've found here is to make such misses "glancing blows". Anything that is under by 1 point hits, but does half damage.

You could expand this rule of course to turn AC into a "range", granting bonus damage for every point above and reducing damage for every point below. Might be an interesting take on it....


....hadn't thought of that till now. Maybe:
Every 1 point below the target AC subtracts from the damage die of your weapon, if the total negatives equal the maximum your dice can roll, you deal no damage. Otherwise you roll and add your appropriate score, then subtract by how much you missed. For every point above the target number, you get a +1 to damage.

Could lead to certain characters (Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, Battle Clerics) never missing, but since that's pretty much their thing I could probably live with that.

Would also give less reason to hand out magic +X gear.

hmmmm.....
Interesting idea, but we’ve been moving towards more simplicity than complexity (e.g. switching to 5e from PF). Also, when our DMs do fudge numbers, it’s actually pretty rare. At a guess, maybe once or twice every 2 or 3 sessions.

But it’s an interesting rule for groups to consider.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top