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]

...which would make his argumentative content consistent with everyone else in this latest top quality "yes it is" / "no, it is not" thread.

Going back to an earlier point...
I had also quoted this paragraph before. My reading of this paragraph in the 5e DMG, much like the preceding paragraph on players fudging, does not seem so much to be about permitting DM fudging as legal, but, rather, simply an admission that it happens and that DMs use the DM Screen as a means to "cleverly" enable their own cheating. Jaywalking does not become legal just because most law enforcement looks the other way or finds it beneath their trouble.

Now if the DM and players decide that cheating is permissible, presumably within limits of some social contract, then it does not mean that cheating has ceased being cheating, but that certain forms of cheating has become permissible within play at that table.

Again, this is where I disagree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and you.ere are a couple of definitions of cheating:

Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination. "she always cheats at cards"

And another:

Act dishonestly, be cunning, be dishonest, befool, beguile, betray, break faith, commit breach of trust, cozen, deceive, defalcate, defraud, deprive of dishonestly, dissemble, dupe, embezzle, fraudare, ignore ethics, lack honesty, obtain money by false pretenses, pettifog, play false, practice chicanery, practice fraud, prevaricate, purloin, represent falsely, sharp, swindle.

The definition of cheating is all about being dishonest, unethical, breaking the rules, etc. Literally, by definition, playing by the rules cannot be cheating. Telling us we're cheating when we're following the rules, openly and honestly at our tables is insulting.

The problem I have with folks continuing to call this cheating within the context of a game where it is explicitly allowed by the people playing the game. It's really not about what's in the rules, but what the people sitting at the table agree to. You're calling people dishonest. You're telling them they are wrong, and they shouldn't play the game that way. But they might find that they don't like the style that is more mechanically focused, and might decide that D&D or RPGs aren't for them. You're not wrong for wanting to play in a game where DMs aren't allowed to fudge or alter the rules. But we're not wrong for enjoying playing in one either.

The book allows point buy. We don't use point buy at my table. The book allows fudging, and you don't allow that at your table. Fair enough. But there are a lot of people who still prefer to allow the DM a lot more leeway in adjudication of the game, including altering die rolls when they feel necessary. If those at the table all agree, then it is not cheating. They are not dishonest. They are not unethical. They are not playing in bad faith, and they are not breaking the rules. They just enjoy a different playstyle than you.

Your example about jaywalking is irrelevant. Because the law (rules) don't say you can jaywalk. This isn't a question of ignoring something that somebody is doing wrong. It's about setting a specific rule (even if it's a house rule) that says it is allowed. That is, it is legal. If they change the law to read "you can cross the street anywhere you damn well please" then there is literally no such thing as jaywalking anymore. Because jaywalking is, literally, crossing the street illegally.

If the paragraph in 5e wasn't there to allow DMs to fudge, then they could have simply written, "don't fudge the dice." They didn't need to put anything at all in the rules regarding it, and Gary Gygax certainly didn't need to in AD&D. Although in his case it wasn't, " lets you fudge the dice if you want to," it was "You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time" and there is literally no reason to add that line of text to any game unless it's something that you're allowed to do in the game. That's not ambiguous or mincing words. Have you ever seen any other game other than an RPG explicitly tell you that you can overrule the dice? There is absolutely no need to do that unless it's something that you can do. If you want to, and if the table agrees.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Who's being hoity-toity?

Gygax talks repeatedly about skilled play. The closing words of his PHB say that, if you think AD&D is worth playing, you'll find it doubly so if played well. And the preceding two pages of text tell us what playing well means in this context, as do the passages [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] and I have quoted from the DMG: it means preparing sensibly, having a plan of attack in relation to the dungeon, not being distracted by the GM's lures and wandering monsters, etc, in rulebooks that I think don't even use the word "story".

Obviously that's not the only metric for RPGing well. It's not a metric that I use in my own RPGing. But it is clear enough, and if that is how one judges skilled play, then certain consequences follow. Which Gygax himself points to when he says that certain GMing practices would be contrary to the major precepts of the game.

I don't know why it's so important to you and others in this thread to show that Gygax endorsed the White Wolf "golden rule" way back in 1978-79.

So I've mentioned several times that I really don't care what Gygax wrote, or any of the later books. I only really care what works for us at our table.

Having said that, I think that the White Wolf "golden rule" arose out of the play styles of the day. Just like we still debate the nature and methods of play today, so they did then. The golden rule didn't arise out of nothing, and frankly if it did I think it wouldn't have taken hold anyway. If the prevailing style of play was strictly by the rules, and no fudging allowed, and the focus was on skilled play, then I highly doubt the golden rule would have arisen, and I don't think it would have been written into any rule books. There must have been a receptive audience for that message to start, and I think that's because the message was largely consistent with what we already knew about playing the game. It was just more considered and a more fully developed explanation.

Skilled play is a bit of a moving target I think, too. What do you consider skilled play? Is min/maxing skilled play? How do you measure the skill of role-playing? Why would you measure skilled play at all? Again, I get that when you have a tournament, that it's fun to compare how your group did compared to others. But are they really measuring skilled play (unless you're talking about who got the farthest the fastest? Don't most people talk about the cool things that happened, rather than focus on things like mechanics? Isn't the "winner" in these comparisons usually the one that comes up with a more creative approach or resolution? Is having a 3-hour immersive interaction with the king skilled play even if there were no rules engaged or dice thrown?

 

[Maxperson]

I would say that houseruling new rules for the table is one thing, but that fudging the rules you supposedly follow is another. And I don't think that we should speak as if these the two matters equate with each other.

There are at least 4 editions in which they do equate, though. Gygax himself spoke of the DM being able to alter die rolls. That he used them in a specific context doesn't negate the fact that he also gave DMs the leeway to ignore any context or advice he gives, so altering die rolls as the DM sees fit was part of the 1e and 2e rules. 5e specifically tells the DM he can alter die rolls as a rule with no limitations given.

3e says this about altering die rolls.

"Do you cheat? The answer: The DM really can't cheat. You're the umpire and what you say goes. As such, it's certainly within your rights to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or keep things running smoothly."

 

[Aldarc]

There are at least 4 editions in which they do equate, though. Gygax himself spoke of the DM being able to alter die rolls. That he used them in a specific context doesn't negate the fact that he also gave DMs the leeway to ignore any context or advice he gives, so altering die rolls as the DM sees fit was part of the 1e and 2e rules. 5e specifically tells the DM he can alter die rolls as a rule with no limitations given.

3e says this about altering die rolls.

"Do you cheat? The answer: The DM really can't cheat. You're the umpire and what you say goes. As such, it's certainly within your rights to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or keep things running smoothly."

You are speaking of fudging, but that does not say that houserules equates to fudging.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I would say that houseruling new rules for the table is one thing, but that fudging the rules you supposedly follow is another. And I don't think that we should speak as if these the two matters equate with each other.

Yes, they are different. But the point is that if a rule allows fudging, then fudging is not cheating. It's simply a rule that states, "use the dice as a tool to help adjudicate resolutions. Most of the time the dice are the right answer, and most of the times you use them, the results of the dice are the right answer too." And it's not that these rules are "supposedly followed." The rule essentially states that most (perhaps 90%+) of the time the die roll is what is used. But there are times when it's not. It could be 99%, it could be a lot less. Note that no matter what, it also has to make sense within the fiction, at least in my game. That is, there should be consequences.

So the rule to allow fudging is important, even if it is a house rule.

Probably the most common circumstance for fudging is the unexpected roll that would result in the death of a character. This is also a specific situation that Gary called out. My take on that passage has always been simple: the game isn't designed to provide a rule for every possible outcome. In AD&D, you were either dead or not. No maiming, no list of possible alternatives to death when you're dead. Here Gary is specifically pointing out that there are alternatives. And the DM has the right to alter that result from death to something else. The recommendation is that there should be consequences. And I personally think that's the major precept he's talking about. It's not about how sacred the die rolls are. It's about the consequences of their actions, and if the normally prescribed consequence (death) isn't appropriate, then substitute a similar severe consequence. Consequences are important, but they don't always have to be the same consequences.

This goes along with another major precept that grew into the golden rule; that the DM is the arbitrator, the referee, and adjudicator. That they are empowered to take into account the circumstances, and this isn't only about the in-game circumstances. In his commentary on overruling character death he specifically calls out, "It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well."

Something that I will point out again, though, is that it's the table that must agree on the rule. Whether the rule is in play or not should not be a secret. Whether the situations where it is engaged are secret is up to the group. I have players that really just don't want to know about anything that goes on behind the screen. All they want is for things to play out in an enjoyable way for them. Other players are DMs and they want to know more about what I'm doing. I'm happy to share any of it. It's open and honest.

 

[Maxperson]

You are speaking of fudging, but that does not say that houserules equates to fudging.

I'm saying that altering die rolls is part of the rules for 4 of the last 5 editions. In 1e and 2e, there is some advice on when to do it, but there is the power of the DM to ignore such advice. Only in 1e and 2e was the DM going against the advice(not a rule) of Gygax in altering die rolls. In 3e and 5e, the rules specifically allow the DM to alter the die rolls, and in 3e they let you know that doing so isn't cheating at all.

4e I'm not sure about, as I didn't play it very much and didn't DM it at all.

 

[Maxperson]

Something that I will point out again, though, is that it's the table that must agree on the rule. Whether the rule is in play or not should not be a secret. Whether the situations where it is engaged are secret is up to the group. I have players that really just don't want to know about anything that goes on behind the screen. All they want is for things to play out in an enjoyable way for them. Other players are DMs and they want to know more about what I'm doing. I'm happy to share any of it. It's open and honest.

If it's written into the DMG like altering die rolls is for 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e, then it can be assumed to be in play like every other rule unless stated otherwise. I don't see a need to go through every rule one by one and get the table to agree to it. If the players have an issue with a rule, they can come to me and we can all discuss it.

 

[prosfilaes]

Jaywalking does not become legal just because most law enforcement looks the other way or finds it beneath their trouble.

Now if the DM and players decide that cheating is permissible, presumably within limits of some social contract, then it does not mean that cheating has ceased being cheating, but that certain forms of cheating has become permissible within play at that table.

Jaywalking was not illegal anywhere until Big Auto pushed for the right for cars to careen down streets at ridiculous speeds.* The social contract changed, such that what once was a place for horse and people to share was now the primary property of the car. Even now, there are places where you can walk anywhere you want and most cars are forbidden, be it large parts of campuses or wilderness areas or the centers of certain cities, especially those built pre-car.

Jaywalking is an arbitrary restriction on what people can do, set into place by law and social custom. At tables that aren't organized play, there's just the players, bound by social contract and any formal rules (law, basically) they chose to bind themselves do. Like jaywalking, it's not cheating if it's not forbidden by that social contract or law.

* https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

 

[Ilbranteloth]

If it's written into the DMG like altering die rolls is for 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e, then it can be assumed to be in play like every other rule unless stated otherwise. I don't see a need to go through every rule one by one and get the table to agree to it. If the players have an issue with a rule, they can come to me and we can all discuss it.

I think that it’s only fair, in today’s broad range of play styles, that the more controversial rules are agreed upon up front. Of all the rules, this one in particular is important because it clearly poisons the well for those of us that prefer the style when people who don’t like it (including those that don’t even know they don’t like it) find out that it has been used and they feel cheated.

Even in AD&D days it probably would have been wiser to ensure that everybody was on the same page, because there is no mention of it outside the DMG. Actually, that may be the case in 5E too.

The reality is, for people coming from other games, it’s reasonable to assume that everybody is following the same rules. That does not mean a rule that allows fudging is wrong. But it is different from what many might expect. And if something is different that what somebody’s expectations are, it’s good to clear that up out front.

For example, I also make it clear that monster stats and abilities don’t necessarily match what’s in the MM. That’s an important distinction for a lot of players, because many expect them to be used as written.

Even clarifying that I don’t utilize the standard CR system or design encounters based on the party’s level, and that they need to pay attention and be prepared to run.

There are so many different ways to play I just think that setting proper expectations and determining whether there are any serious disagreements on play style. I might not change the play style depending on the circumstances, but I also would hope that somebody will give it a chance and I will be as transparent as possible. It’s a table decision, though and we can’t always accommodate everybody.

I exert more control in my home game. For a public game It varies. But the table has to agree, and the only way that happens is we have to talk about it.

 

[Maxperson]

I think that it’s only fair, in today’s broad range of play styles, that the more controversial rules are agreed upon up front. Of all the rules, this one in particular is important because it clearly poisons the well for those of us that prefer the style when people who don’t like it (including those that don’t even know they don’t like it) find out that it has been used and they feel cheated.

Even in AD&D days it probably would have been wiser to ensure that everybody was on the same page, because there is no mention of it outside the DMG. Actually, that may be the case in 5E too.

The reality is, for people coming from other games, it’s reasonable to assume that everybody is following the same rules. That does not mean a rule that allows fudging is wrong. But it is different from what many might expect. And if something is different that what somebody’s expectations are, it’s good to clear that up out front.

For example, I also make it clear that monster stats and abilities don’t necessarily match what’s in the MM. That’s an important distinction for a lot of players, because many expect them to be used as written.

Even clarifying that I don’t utilize the standard CR system or design encounters based on the party’s level, and that they need to pay attention and be prepared to run.

There are so many different ways to play I just think that setting proper expectations and determining whether there are any serious disagreements on play style. I might not change the play style depending on the circumstances, but I also would hope that somebody will give it a chance and I will be as transparent as possible. It’s a table decision, though and we can’t always accommodate everybody.

I exert more control in my home game. For a public game It varies. But the table has to agree, and the only way that happens is we have to talk about it.

This is one of those rules, perhaps the only rule, where I can't bring it up. Before [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] or someone comes in screaming, "Because they would think it's cheating!," that has nothing to do with it. Even if they were all okay with it, I would have to stop altering die rolls so as not to cause bad feelings if I don't alter rolls when a player thinks I should have. Beyond that, I don't want the players thinking that I will keep their PCs alive. I don't alter die rolls for that purpose. There's no point in bringing up a rule that if brought up, won't be used.

As I mentioned multiple times earlier in this thread, I will only alter rolls in two circumstances. The first circumstance is if they PCs are going to be wiped out or lose members due purely to horrible luck. If my dice are hot and theirs are not, and things are grim, I will alter a roll here and there to even things up a bit. They could, and sometimes still do lose, but at least it won't be because the dice gods said so. If they are in a bad way due to bad decisions, no die altering will happen. The second time I will alter rolls is if they are trouncing the BBEG. I will never alter rolls to give the BBEG a chance to win, but only to survive long enough to not be a completely disappointing fight. I will also never alter die rolls if he is being trounced due to good planning on the part of the players. I'm not going to invalidate the players.

The above circumstances are very rare. They only come about anywhere from 0-2 times a campaign, and since the results of the die altering are not obvious, or even perceivable to the players, nobody ever knows.