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?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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

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.

How can following the rules for their game be cheating? By that measure, everybody using point buy or 4d6 drop 1 is cheating as far as I'm concerned. 3d6 all the way!

 

[kenmarable]

How can following the rules for their game be cheating?

Exactly!! If everybody at the table agrees to it - it's not cheating. That's been my definition all along. It seems the simplest and most intuitive.

 

[Hussar]

I suppose it depends on the viewer really. A table that lets you declare hits, for example, isn’t cheating by your definition since the table agrees. But they certainly aren’t playing by the rules either.

Are they cheating or not? From their perspective probably not. But from any outside observer? I’d say yes they are.

 

[Maxperson]

I suppose it depends on the viewer really. A table that lets you declare hits, for example, isn’t cheating by your definition since the table agrees. But they certainly aren’t playing by the rules either.

Sure they are. The table makes the rules. Official rules aren't sacred. They can be altered or removed without it being cheating.

Are they cheating or not? From their perspective probably not. But from any outside observer? I’d say yes they are.

They can't be. An outside observer may not understand, but if everyone at the table is doing it, the outside observer can't call it cheating and be correct.

 

[Maxperson]

Just out of curiosity [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], if the rules say you can cheat, is it cheating to cheat?

 

[Aldarc]

Just out of curiosity [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], if the rules say you can cheat, is it cheating to cheat?

How do you not see this as a fallacy of circular reasoning? And this is the sort of circular reasoning that "the GM cannot cheat" relies upon to perpetuate itself.

Players: "You're cheating!"

GM: "I'm not cheating; I'm fudging."

Player: "What's fudging?"

GM: "It's when I lie and respond dishonestly about dice results and mechanics."

Players: "How is that not cheating?"

GM: "The rules permit me to cheat."

Players: "So if you are permitted to cheat, then you can cheat?"

GM: "Yes, but I am authorized to cheat."

Players: "So you are cheating?!"

GM: "No, because I can cheat." or even "No, because I cannot cheat."

Players: /facepalm

The GM just shifts the goal posts as convenient to excuse and justify their actions.

If you are authorized to cheat and then engage in that act, then I would say that, yes, you are still cheating. Being authorized to do something so does not erase the nature of the act. Your parents may have let you cheat when they were playing Monopoly with you, but you would still have been cheating, no?

If you want to cheat to make a more enjoyable game for everyone, then that's fine. But I would appreciate if GMs would be honest about the fact that they are cheating and not just hiding behind duplicitous doublespeak and the pretext of Rule 0 to do it.

 

[Maxperson]

How do you not see this as a fallacy of circular reasoning?

It's not a fallacy. I happen to know a game where the rules allow you to cheat(it's not an RPG). If I engage that rule and cheat, am I cheating?

Players: "You're cheating!"

GM: "I'm not cheating; I'm fudging."

Player: "What's fudging?"

GM: "It's where the rules allow me to alter the dice results and mechanics in order to make the game better for you."

Players: "How is that not cheating?"

GM: "Cheating requires that 1) it be unfair AND for my advantage, and this is neither one, and 2) it requires me to be breaking the rules."

Players: "Hey, you're right. That was pretty obvious."

That's how it would really go down.

The GM just shifts the goal posts as convenient to excuse and justify their actions.

Um, no goal posts are shifted there.

If you are authorized to cheat and then engage in that act, then I would say that, yes, you are still cheating. Being authorized to do something so does not erase the nature of the act. Your parents may have let you cheat when they were playing Monopoly with you, but you would still have been cheating, no?

That's a False Equivalence. If they ignore cheating, that's different from a rules change. For example, if as a child I took a $500 bill from the stack that I wasn't supposed to have and my parents ignored it, I would be cheating and have crappy parents. If on the other hand my parents and I added the Free Parking rule and put a $500 in the middle of the board for whoever landed on Free Parking, that would not be cheating if I landed on it and took the $500.

 

[Aldarc]

It's not a fallacy.

Circular reasoning is a fallacy, though you probably intend to argue that your circular reasoning is not circular. Perhaps by cleverly insisting that it's not circular reasoning because it is in fact oval reasoning.

I happen to know a game where the rules allow you to cheat(it's not an RPG). If I engage that rule and cheat, am I cheating?

Unless I am mistaken, you answered your own question: you engaged in that rule and cheated ergo you cheated.

That's how it would really go down.

If that were the case, then we would not be at 30+ pages of listening to people bending over backwards to justify their cheating as GMs, would we?

Um, no goal posts are shifted there.

Um, yes they were because the GM is being evasive about their cheating and shifting the goal posts to that end.

That's a False Equivalence. If they ignore cheating, that's different from a rules change.

False Equivalence? You asked if you were authorized to cheat whether or not it would be cheating. In my example, the parents authorized the kid to cheat. Your question did not stipulate a rules change.

But isn't ignoring the rules part of Rule Zero? But you are right that cheating is different from a rules change. And that is part of my problem with arguing about Rule Zero. (1) It encompasses too many various game permissions (e.g., house rules, gm fiat, gm fudging/cheating, etc.) to be of any real practical use, and in so doing, (2) it imparts too much carte blanche authority to a singular figure (i.e., the GM). As it stands now in this thread, Rule Zero essentially amounts to the GM forcing the other plays to submit to their whims in a game of Calvin Ball while insisting that its for their own good. Such a rule probably made more sense in the early days when the game was far more ambiguous and unknown, with the GM being the only real expert on the rules, but that is less the case with how many games are currently played.

I would personally prefer if more RPGs made a distinction between House Rules/Game Hacks, GM Fiat, and GM Fudging, and possibly a few other permissions I am forgetting, instead of conflating all of them within the singular, but nebulous and potentially Social Contract-breaking, Rule Zero.

House Rules/Games Hacks: that authority rests with the GM and players. Changes to the rules in mid-play should be discussed by all participants.

GM Fiat: although ultimate authority makes the GM the final arbiter of the rules, the GM can and should discuss this with the group such that expectations are clear.

FM Fudging: Let's call a spade a spade and just admit that it's cheating.

 

[Sadras]

@Aldarc, out of interest, does it make a difference to the terminology you prefer if the act is transparent?
i.e. if the insert preferable word occurs in the open is it cheating in your view?

The only reason I ask is because the USA Pres is allowed to make executive orders, but it is not classed as unconstitutional, similar in a way to the DM who is allowed to fudge without it defined as cheating, as that authority and power is given to them by the positions they fill.

 

[Lanefan]

I would personally prefer if more RPGs made a distinction between House Rules/Game Hacks, GM Fiat, and GM Fudging, and possibly a few other permissions I am forgetting, instead of conflating all of them within the singular, but nebulous and potentially Social Contract-breaking, Rule Zero.

Or, for even more clarity, simply state right up front that there is a big difference between the GM role and the player role; part of which is that a GM can in effect do what she likes but a player cannot.

This then needs to be immediately either preceded or followed by an outline for both players and GMs on what it means to play in good faith and stay within the spirit of the game, whatever game it may be.

House Rules/Games Hacks: that authority rests with the GM and players. Changes to the rules in mid-play should be discussed by all participants.

Fine in theory, but in practice if the GM wants to change a rule, chances are high to extremely high that it gets changed.

That said, major rule changes in mid-play are not often a good idea and are instead best done between campaigns, using lessons learned in one campaign to fix the next one.

GM Fiat: although ultimate authority makes the GM the final arbiter of the rules, the GM can and should discuss this with the group such that expectations are clear.

Or, as I said above, the game itself should make this clear in both its PH and DMG equivalents.

FM Fudging: Let's call a spade a spade and just admit that it's cheating.

And here terminology gets squarely in the way.

Cheating is a negative term, describing something usually done outside the rules specifically to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or one's team or side. But in the situation of a GM, I'd guess it's very rare she's "cheating" to give herself an unfair advantage - in fact she's probably doing it to unfairly give herself a disadvantage - which means cheating probably isn't the best term for it as what she's doing only meets half the definition: she's outside the rules, yes, but not looking to gain an unfair advantage for herself.

Lanefan