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?

 

[Nada]

The "everybody cheats" contingency sounds far more verbally rationalizing their own actions than the belief that others cheat. Feeling the need to cheat displays an incredible lack of imagination or desire to actually play a role. If known and allowed, it shows the gamemaster places more value on number sets than interactive gameplay.

The best rpg memories I have are a result of rolls and role-play caused by the defects and failings of the characters: a 9 DEX, a critical fumble while handling dynamite, etc. al. Characters who never fail because of cheating create banal and boring games.
And if I want banal and boring, there's always another Hollywood blockbuster to watch.

Some of us hear all the reasons why it's okay for one person to cheat because everybody cheats, right? Right...?
ahhhh... no.

 

[Morrus]

The "everybody cheats" contingency sounds far more verbally rationalizing their own actions than the belief that others cheat. Feeling the need to cheat displays an incredible lack of imagination or desire to actually play a role. If known and allowed, it shows the gamemaster places more value on number sets than interactive gameplay.

The best rpg memories I have are a result of rolls and role-play caused by the defects and failings of the characters: a 9 DEX, a critical fumble while handling dynamite, etc. al. Characters who never fail because of cheating create banal and boring games.
And if I want banal and boring, there's always another Hollywood blockbuster to watch.

Some of us hear all the reasons why it's okay for one person to cheat because everybody cheats, right? Right...?
ahhhh... no.

Only read the title, eh?

 

[Umbran]

If you have to cheat to succeed at something to win then you never really have won. Because the victory of a well-deserved accomplishment is far better than a quick cheat. It also cheapens the game and makes the game very unfun for most.

"Cheapens"? It still costs $27.98 on Amazon, whether the player "misreads" a hit roll or not. This is not some noble endeavor or something. It is 14 year-olds with chips and soda and a good time. I think the Cheeto dust rather puts us past the idea that we have to worry about the game being cheap.

And, when faced with an article that has at least some surveying backing it, claiming that you know what it does for "most" is perhaps not the best rhetorical direction. Let's have you lay out yoru data next to theirs, and then we can talk, hm?

also if you cheat you are less likly to care about the game its self because nothing matters you can do anything, no sence of real lose or accomplishment character.

Oh, good grief, another with the absolutism and extremes!

Here's a rhetorical question for anyone who wants to go down this road - Do you, or anyone you know, ever exceed the speed limit while driving a car? Has this led your communities to being a permanent reasonable facsimile of the movie, "The Purge"? Are you now typing from your safe-room/bunker, because breaking the rules has led to total societal breakdown? If not, then maybe you should walk it back a bit, because that's what your argument amounts to.

I know it doesn't make for astounding or melodramatic rhetoric, but in the real world, people often do things in moderation. They don't always drink alcohol until they are blind drunk, they don't eat entire cheesecakes in one sitting when they go off their diets, and they don't break every single rule all the time. Folks are perfectly capable of cheating in moderation too - when the rule is a small thing, it doesn't matter a whole lot, but it would be irksome or annoying to follow the rules strictly, they might deviate; but when it is important, they realize that not sticking to them isn't as much fun, and play by the book.

 

[Umbran]

Well, not until the game table is flipped and the six-guns come out . . . .

"Hey, hombre has a loaded die up his sleeve! Draw cheater!" *bang*

"Dangit, Simon! We're playing Classic Deadlands, where there's an explicit rule in the initiative mechanic about keeping a card up his sleeve. This is the third player you've shot this month! Lighten up!"

 

[Schmoe]

I love that there are at least two posts that start out saying "I never cheat!" and then proceed to explain "except sometimes when I DM."

 

[Imaculata]

Ever since I stopped fudging rolls as a DM (several years ago), my group has experienced so many close calls. Just last session an anti-paladin reduced a character to -9 hp in a third edition campaign, thanks to rolling a crit on a smite. And another foe almost killed a character, if it weren't for his poorly timed fumble. My players never tell me how many hitpoints they have left, so that I don't go easy on them. And it makes those critical successes and misses all the more enjoyable. This makes my players feel like every victory was earned with blood, sweat and tears.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I make my players roll out in the open in front of everybody, and I do the same. My DM screen usually lays flat on the table (unless I have a very large dungeon map I need to conceal). And at character generation, you'd better believe that everybody rolls 3d6 in order and has to keep the set of stats they roll unless (in keeping with the letter of the Rules Cyclopedia) they get a set with multiple scores lower than 6 or no one score better than 12.

. . . So I guess not everybody cheats.

 

[sketchingjohn]

I used to roll behind a screen and occassionally fudge a bad roll. Now I roll right out in the open 100% of the time and find it hasn't broken anything.

It may also make us more thoughtful when designing encounters, since you can't just fix it on the fly during gameplay.

Not judging GM's who fudge a little behind the screen, or especially when introducing the game to younger players. I just don't do it with my fellow long time roleplaying buddies.

 

[Eltab]

One time at a Convention when I was having a particularly bad day for die rolls, I pulled a special set of 2d6 out of my bag. I have never opened this pair of "Las Vegas Dice" which could only roll 7 or 11.* I handed them to the DM and asked "Do you mind if I use these dice for the rest of the afternoon?"
They are still unopened. Everybody at the table got a laugh out of it - and the other players contributed a mixed set of dice so I could finish the session.

* One die is all 5's; the other is half 2's and half 6's.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I wonder if cheating was more prevalent in the early days of roleplaying because the system wasn't doing what players wanted it to do in terms of the likelihood of PC survival.

The most prevalent approach to OSR play on r/rpg on reddit seems to be to use the principle of 'Rulings not Rules' to make any PC actions not directly covered by the rules much more likely to succeed. So frex throwing your cloak over an orc's head and trying to trip him is a much better tactic than stabbing him with your sword.

Another approach, I think one favoured in early Forgotten Realms materials, was to use powerful NPCs as The Cavalry - rescuing the PCs whenever they seem likely to die.

All three of these approaches:
1) Cheating.
2) Actions outside the rules are more likely to succeed.
3) Powerful NPCs save the PCs.

are the same in the sense that all work without changing the game rules, and all make the PCs more likely to survive.