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]

I’d agree I don’t understand your point, but that’s ok. And no, I didn’t take it as an attack. I guess I just think it’s simpler than that. Im not really sure what you mean that the mechanical legacy is at odds with the play experience.

I started following the XP rules, but it was really just a lot of math, and that isn’t my strong suit. Since after doing all the math at the end of an adventure raised us 1 level, it just seemed to make sense to skip the math bit.

It didn’t seem to change the way the game played at all. I suppose you could say we were still following the XP system, but as [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] pointed out, AD&D didn’t have symmetrical leveling. We more or less did, but since we had new characters coming in fairly frequently, we did have parties of different level characters.

So I’m not sure how far you’d say we strayed from Gygaxian XP.

But my comment was still an objection with the statement that it would “break the game.” It certainly never felt broken.

If you’re referring to the style of play of my games being related to whether we use XP or not? I certainly don’t think so. The style of our games was based largely on Ed Greenwood’s articles in Dragon magazine and how we thought his games worked. The Ecology of... articles and the lengthy lore given for things like spell books. There were other authors as well at the time, but he was by far the most influential. Oddly coupled with Tomb of Horrors, Keep on the Borderlands, Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Descent into the Depths of the Earth, Village of Hommlet, and Queen of the Demonweb Pits as my models for dungeon and adventure design. Somehow we skipped Vault of the Drow.

We loved the wilderness sections, the town sections, I think we must have spent three or four sessions in the keep before ever heading out to the wilderness. And several more there (this was back in the day when we could do marathon sessions several times a week...)

Most of the adventures were homebrew, but those probably influenced me the most. Of course we played nearly every adventure that came out (except the Vault...).

Ahh, wait. I think I just got it. You mean if the DM wants to use Gygaxian XP and the players don’t.

Got it.

Yeah, that sounds a lot like a DM being willing to alter rolls and the players not. Or the DM rolling secretly or for the players when the players want it in the open. Or pretty much any time the DM and players are playing different games even though they think it’s the same.

 

[pemerton]

The 3.5 DMG in the section talking about die rolling specifically says that the DM can't cheat. It's in explicit black and white. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] ignores things like that, though.

It's good to see that you would never stoop to insults or name calling!

As it happens I can't reply to [MENTION=1727]kobold[/MENTION] Boots, because s/he has put me on ignore following the reply.

But in any event, all I was doing was pointing out what rule zero was in 3E. It was a rule that one must check with one's GM. Not a rule that the GM can, at any time, do whatever s/he wants to the state of the shared fiction or to a resolution process.

 

[pemerton]

If you’re referring to the style of play of my games being related to whether we use XP or not? I certainly don’t think so. The style of our games was based largely on Ed Greenwood’s articles in Dragon magazine and how we thought his games worked.

For what it's worth, your posts convey to this reader that you are still playing very much in that style.

Playing in that style, I would say that Gygax's advice on pp 107-9 of his PHB, under the heading Successful Adventures, is largely irrelevant if not actually unhelpful. Just as one example, Gygax says that part of effective preparation for a session includes making sure that "we have as broad a spectrum of spells as possible so as to be able to have a good chance against the unexpected, considering the objective and what it requires in spells?" But in a Greenwood style a higher priority (I would have thought) would be that a PC's spell selection reflects the inclinations and idiosyncracies of that PC, even if it means that the party is less than optimally prepared for uncertain eventualities.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, in general when playing published adventures you could only go up a level when you returned to town. And you could only go up one level at a time. So most adventures were worth one level, or at least that’s the simple solution. Instant milestone leveling, which was made more concrete in 2e if I recalled.

Assuming of course there was enough xp in the adventure to level you up...usually true at low levels, not always true at higher.

And with the variable progression by class in 0-1-2e the Thief would bump long before the MU did - a balancing mechanism that milestone levelling does away with. In an adventure with enough xp to get a MU from 1st to 2nd the Thief - if she went back to town and trained up halfway through - would be almost to 3rd with the same xp.

I don't remember milestone levelling being a thing in 2e at launch, and if it came in later I missed it: I pretty much ignored most of the last half of the 2e era.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not attaching any value judgement here.

Actually yes you are, in that the word "cheating" carries with it a very strong negative connotation (and therefore implies a clear value judgment) yet you seem determined to keep applying it to these situations.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

For what it's worth, your posts convey to this reader that you are still playing very much in that style.

Playing in that style, I would say that Gygax's advice on pp 107-9 of his PHB, under the heading Successful Adventures, is largely irrelevant if not actually unhelpful. Just as one example, Gygax says that part of effective preparation for a session includes making sure that "we have as broad a spectrum of spells as possible so as to be able to have a good chance against the unexpected, considering the objective and what it requires in spells?" But in a Greenwood style a higher priority (I would have thought) would be that a PC's spell selection reflects the inclinations and idiosyncracies of that PC, even if it means that the party is less than optimally prepared for uncertain eventualities.

Spell selection is whatever the PCs feel is most beneficial for the matter at hand. They’d select different spells for an underground adventure than a heist or hunting down a band of thieves at a noble’s villa vs a trek across the desert.

The spells available to them follows the Gygax (and Greenwood) model: random determination at 1st level, and then whatever you find and learn or research. Keep in mind that the original Forgotten Realms setting followed the AD&D rules without significant alterations (as opposed to say, Dragonlance). Ed just created in-world reasons why elves and dwarves were more rare, for example.

The main difference was a much greater level of lore than Gygax/Greyhawk provided. It was also more focused on the everyday life of the people of the world as a way to ground things and pull things together. The focus was also on the setting as a place for the DM to write their own adventures, rather than adventures to place within the DM’s setting. Sourcebooks were far more common than adventures in the Realms. Where Greyhawk, and especially Dragonlance, were adventure driven, albeit with Dragonlance in an epic story approach, and Greyhawk in a more generic and unconnected manner.

Perhaps the Greenwood model is more focused on the characters rather than the rules. Or at least the rules that are within the character’s realm in that mastery would be measured by role-playing the character (not always the same as “acting”), rather than mastery of mechanical rules. But I never felt that Gygax was focused on the mechanics as a measuring stick.

If anything, then, maybe it was a broader concept of experience, or the rejection of combat/treasure as the sole measure in the game. I’m not sure I’d attribute that to Ed though, or the Forgotten Realms.

It seems to me that the real hallmark is immersion in the characters and setting, primarily through lore, including highlighting the mundane aspects of life. This doesn’t preclude utilizing any of Gygax’s approaches, and can build on them. At least that’s the sense I always had.

 

[Lanefan]

My point is that AD&D uses a wargaming XP system (XP for monsters, plus a few other bits and pieces on the side) yet presents the goal of play as something other than wargaming.

In 2e, possibly.

In 1e as written, the vast majority of earned xp (at least in published modules of the era) comes from recovery of treasure; assuming the PCs are the least bit efficient at scooping the loot they find. [MENTION=3854]Quasqueton[/MENTION] did a bunch of detailed analyses years and years ago on just this; the threads he started to discuss the results are buried in here somewhere if you want to dig 'em up.

What socio-political decision does this reveal?

I can certainly tell you, as a cold hard fact, that both rather left wing and rather right wing posters on this board have enjoyed 4e. (I am not going to identify said posters, as that would violate board rules, but my judgements of political affiliation are not speculative but based rather on PM correspondence.)

In any event, to reiterate and elaborate: the decision is aesthetic. It is a decision that levelling is not a reward of play, but rather a pacing device.

It is comparable to the way Pendragon handles time: whereas in Gygax's AD&D time is a resource, to be used sensibly (or squandered foolishly) in improving one's position as a player (see his DMG p 38), in Pendragon one adventure occurs each year. Time in Pendragon is not a resoure, or a reward, but rather the passage of time is a backdrop to the unfolding events of play.

So, in 4e, the increasing prowess and reputation of the PCs ia a backdrop to the unfolding events of play.

It's odd, but I agree with the last line of this for my own preferences (I prefer level-up to be a side effect of play rather than the reason for playing) while greatly disagreeing with the logic and points that got you there.

The way I see it, xp (or levels if using a non-xp model) have moved from a reward for individual PC achievement to a reward for collective player participation.

These are decisions about game design, with the aim of producing a particular experience. They are not political manifestos.

In and of themselves, no; but they are reflecting a societal shift towards rewarding participation for its own sake rather than rewarding achievements within that participation.

No. A medal is an award for achievement. In 4e XP are not an award for achievement as a player (unless you count playing the game as an achievement). They are a pacing device.

You call it a pacing device, I call it a reward for showing up, and it's the same thing - as long as you're at the table every week you get the xp regardless of what your PC does in the game.

Which means there's no game-mechanical incentive for your PC to do anything special, or to go above and beyond; while there is a mechanical incentive (you'll get the xp anyway) for hanging back and letting others take the risk.

If there is no XP awarded for successful dungeon exploration (ie extraction of gold and other treasure) then I don't really see how the game is Gygaxian in sprit.

Ah, but there is. We have a thing we call "dungeon bonus" given out at the end of each adventure, reflecting a combination of mission achievement or success (which means if the mission failed they get less!) and xp for all the little class-based things a typical character does every day that don't otherwise get tracked. We brought it in when we took out xp-for-g.p. as a vague wave at a replacement, though the dungeon bonus is nowhere near the amount of xp that treasure-based would have been.

I used XP in my first 4e campaign because that was the default in the rulebooks. In future I wouldn't bother. Levelling when everyone at the table things it would be fun, or make sense, to level up would be just as effective (maybe moreso) and require less bookkeeping.

See above re incentives and disincentives. Also doesn't account for things done by just one PC, or by a split party.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

Spell selection is whatever the PCs feel is most beneficial for the matter at hand.

But presumably if a player decides that his/her PC really likes fire spells, and so always memorises fireball ahead of lightning bolt even when expecting to be in some tight places, you wouldn't regard that as bad play?

Whereas Gygax, on those pages of his PHB, does describe that as bad play.

Perhaps the Greenwood model is more focused on the characters rather than the rules. Or at least the rules that are within the character’s realm in that mastery would be measured by role-playing the character (not always the same as “acting”), rather than mastery of mechanical rules. But I never felt that Gygax was focused on the mechanics as a measuring stick.

If anything, then, maybe it was a broader concept of experience, or the rejection of combat/treasure as the sole measure in the game. I’m not sure I’d attribute that to Ed though, or the Forgotten Realms.

It seems to me that the real hallmark is immersion in the characters and setting, primarily through lore, including highlighting the mundane aspects of life. This doesn’t preclude utilizing any of Gygax’s approaches, and can build on them. At least that’s the sense I always had.

I think a notion of "character vs rules" is unhelpful here, because rules aren't a big deal for Gygax. His system doesn't have many of them, and the emphasis is on (i) players making effective plans, including equipment and spell load outs, and (ii) players playing the fiction well, so that (iii) they are able to beat the dungeon and recover the treasure. Eg knowing how to use a 10' pole and a flying thief on a rope to beat the Tomb of Horrors isn't about mastering rules; it's about building up a certain repertoire of ways for engaging with the GM's fiction and having one's character survive that.

I have highighted your sentence that I would say is true of the Greenwood approach, and distinguishes it from Gygax's AD&D books.

And I think it does preclude using Gygax's approaches. Unless all the characters your players play are incredibly one-dimensional, then your players will have reason to ignore Gygax's advice about how to play "well" because they will instead want to make the sorts of decisions they feel fit with their conceptions of their characters.

The point of the above paragraph is not to criticise you. Nor is to criticise Gygax. It's to make the point that there are different approaches to RPGing, and those differences aren't always minor and nor are they always confined to boutique groups or contexts. They're extensive and widespread. And it hinders rather than helps communication to try and homogenise things as if there are no interesting or important differences in the ways people approach this hobby.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Assuming of course there was enough xp in the adventure to level you up...usually true at low levels, not always true at higher.

And with the variable progression by class in 0-1-2e the Thief would bump long before the MU did - a balancing mechanism that milestone levelling does away with. In an adventure with enough xp to get a MU from 1st to 2nd the Thief - if she went back to town and trained up halfway through - would be almost to 3rd with the same xp.

I don't remember milestone levelling being a thing in 2e at launch, and if it came in later I missed it: I pretty much ignored most of the last half of the 2e era.

Lanefan

Yep, although they called it Story Goals. It awards XP for “fun,” improvement (as a player), survival, and story goals. None of these had specific values tied to them. They had monsters, although it didn’t require killing them, and individual character goals such as using special abilities. It was both enlightening and confusing. The pace of advancement was left up to DM, group decision.

And yes, some classes might fluctuate between the same level and a level ahead of some others. That largely went away when we dropped the math. And yes too in that we didn’t always level up after a single adventure, but since by then it was more home-brew adventures that didn’t always have a clear beginning or end, it became more free-form.

 

[pemerton]

In 2e, possibly.

I was referring to 2nd ed AD&D. I hoped the context made that clear.

The way I see it, xp (or levels if using a non-xp model) have moved from a reward for individual PC achievement to a reward for collective player participation.

In and of themselves, no; but they are reflecting a societal shift towards rewarding participation for its own sake rather than rewarding achievements within that participation.

You call it a pacing device, I call it a reward for showing up, and it's the same thing - as long as you're at the table every week you get the xp regardless of what your PC does in the game.

It's not a reward. No one thinks that playing the game is, per se, hard.

If every week you turn up and get to eat chips with your friends while RPGing, does that make the chips a participation trophy?

It's a device for ensuring that the campaing progresses, in a way that everyone knows in advance, through the tiers of play (Heroic, Paragon, Epic) culminating in the PCs realising their epic destinies. That these things will occur is a default assumption of 4e RPGing.

The rewards for play are found elsewhere.

Which means there's no game-mechanical incentive for your PC to do anything special, or to go above and beyond

All this tells me is that you've never played 4e, or thought seriously about how it works as a system. Nearly every mechanical feature of the game is designed to incentivise just this.

while there is a mechanical incentive (you'll get the xp anyway) for hanging back and letting others take the risk.

And this suggests that there are a whole lot of games you haven't seriously thought about!

For instance, when playing five hundred or bridge socially, partners win or lose together. But I've never played a hand of five hundred where my partner "hung back". I have played with partners who were not very good - if that's because of inexperience, then it's polite to let it pass; if that's because a good player is being careless or reckless, then it can be legitimate grounds for irritation! But one doesn't need a system of individual merit or demerit points to generate incentives to participate in a social activity one has volunteered to be part of.

More generally, and building on that point: why would anyone turn up to play a game of 4e and then choose not to play (in your words, to "hang back")? The fun of the game is in playing one's PC and thereby impacting the fiction, whether in the combat or non-combat context. That's what every feature of the PC is set up to enable.

Your whole set of assumptions and reasoning here is (i) ignoring the actual design of 4e, and (ii) ignoring the possibility that people might play a RPG as something other than a wargame, and that a game might be designed to help them do that.