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

Emerikol

Adventurer
I'm with Lanefan on keeping information secret from players. I don't even tell them the name of the monster. I describe it. Now if they are very familiar with the monster, I may give them the name. But new monsters I don't.

It's part of my quest to keep the players in-character.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Emerikol

Adventurer
The DM can't really cheat. Rule 0 overrides all other rules. Everything after rule 0 is an advisory to the DM on how to properly use rule 0.

So "cheat" should not be the world we use. "Fudge" maybe?
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
As I recall, don't you roll 5d6 drop 2 for chargen? I seen to recall that from another conversation.

Not quite. It's 4d6 straight down, but I give them the option to have 2 rolls at 5d6 drop 2, and 2 rolls at 3d6 straight up. It's a gamble they sometimes take and sometimes don't.

So, realistically, not really much of a chance of a low score and very good chances of high scores. IOW, cheating in anything but name.

First, it's not what I give. Second, I play in a game where the DM does give 5d6 drop the lowest 2 and low numbers still make it into stats a lot of the time. He plays a harsher world, though, so the higher stats are sort of a necessity.

Edit: Third, even if it was 5d6 drop 2 the entire way, it's still not cheating in any form whatsoever, since they would be following a rule that I made, so it's not possible for it to be cheating, or even fudging. Hell, it's not even unfair since they would all get it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Were I to take down my DM screen I'd immediately have to replace it with something similar so I'd have somewhere to tack up all my tables, charts, notes, etc., that if put in a binder would grind things to a halt as I'd be constantly flipping through the binder.

I have reached the point where I might need to put all the random tables in a binder of their own, instead of together with all my maps and campaign notes. Because that binder is about to explode.
 

Jacob Marley

Adventurer
I have reached the point where I might need to put all the random tables in a binder of their own, instead of together with all my maps and campaign notes. Because that binder is about to explode.

I started recreating all my random tables in Google Docs. I am almost to the point where all I have in front of me while DMing is my iPad, a notebook, a pencil, and a single set of dice.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I have reached the point where I might need to put all the random tables in a binder of their own, instead of together with all my maps and campaign notes. Because that binder is about to explode.
Maps have their own folder (and some player-facing ones are online as well). Campaign notes have their own folders and boxes scattered around the room.

My "red book" binder is for DM-only tables and charts, magic item lists and prices, homebrew monster and magic item write-ups, and other things I find useful to have close to hand during a session but might not need all the time.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I started recreating all my random tables in Google Docs. I am almost to the point where all I have in front of me while DMing is my iPad, a notebook, a pencil, and a single set of dice.
Quicker for me during a session to look at a piece of paper clipped to my DM screen than fumble with a tablet or phone and look it up online.

That said, I could put the tables into excel or something if I could find a way to fit a desktop* into the rather cramped space behind my DM screen. Now you've got me thinking...

* - I've come to despise laptops/notebooks...I just don't get along with them. :)
 

I've come to despise laptops/notebooks...I just don't get along with them. :)

I only keep a Laptop next to me to play music and sound effects. I don't use it to look anything campaign related up (if I can help it), because I feel that takes attention away from the table. If I do not want my players to constantly look at screens, I shouldn't be doing it either.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top