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?

 

[Aldarc]

Of course they are. How can they not be? You are altering the outcome of dice based on a particular aesthetic. 5e has simply institutionalized cheating. It's adopted cheating into the rules in order to create a particular outcome.

The only difference here is that you have the veneer of respectability because it's "in the rules". One doesn't suddenly stop lying when playing Liars Dice just because the game expects you to lie and is entirely based on your ability to lie convincingly. You're still lying and it's a lot of fun.

I'm not attaching any value judgement here. That's other people's schtick. That it's cheating, well, who cares? Of course it's cheating. But, so what? You are achieving a particular goal, that goal is seen as a good thing, so, where's the problem.

The issue here, that I see, is that people are getting all bent out of shape because it's being called "cheating". Like I said, I don't buy into the rebranding of fudging, or "altering a die roll" or whatever phrase tickles your fancy. It's cheating but that doesn't make it BAD.

Agreed!

Yeah, well when I look at the definition of cheating it’s being dishonest, fraudulent, it is by its ver definition a bad thing. So yes, I do object because none of those rules qualify.

Well you are being dishonest with dice rolls and using your authority to break with the rules at certain junctures. I will echo Hussar's remark that I am not really imparting a value judgment here when I say that this is "cheating." It is what it is, and my preference is honesty about what it is rather than pretending that it something than it's not.

And we can get into an argument of semantics about whether this constitutes "cheating," as we have for many pages, but that this seems to be understood in common parlance as cheating. There are lots of D&D advice videos on YouTube, for example, that variously titled along the lines of "should you cheat as a GM?" or "when should you cheat as a GM?" Many videos do not hide behind double-speak such as "the GM can't cheat!" or "fudging is not cheating." The act is called for what it is. Regardless of whether the GM has authority or not, the nature of the act is implicitly recognized as institutionalized cheating.

So if the game has a mechanic like Inspiration where you can recollect the die cheating?

How about an ability that allows a creature to choose to succeed at a saving throw they failed when they rolled the die?

What about one that allows a creature to roll a die and apply that as a positive or negative modifier after the first die has been rolled?

Are any of these cheating by your definition?

I think there are legitimate reasons to argue as such, but I would also say that one of the critical differences between these mechanics and our discussion of GM fiat to fudge, is that the former constitute delineated mechanics while the latter is not. In order for this to be equivalent, the GM would need their own mechanic, such as a limited token pool for when they could cheat or fudge dice. Fate provides the GM with a limited amount of fate points when they run a scene. Or something akin to the GM Intrusion mechanic from the Cypher System that makes the "fudge" transparent and "honest" about when it occurs.

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.

I wonder if this distinction of playstyles is this what pushed Forgotten Realms over Greyhawk in D&D's gaming culture? Players increasingly preferred an Ed Greenwood way of gameplay? But that discussion is perhaps for another day.

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.

It doesn't help that many of the people against the word "cheating" still invite this moral judgment to themselves when they admit that they are behaving dishonestly when altering the die results or secretly diverging from the rules. If you are worried that the word "duck" carries too strong of a negative connotation - we can call it something else like "Ente" or "Waterfowl" - but it is still looks, walks, and quacks like a duck.

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.

So like a team sport such as Fußball, Football, or Basketball where a victory trophy results from uneven contributions from the team?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

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.

I agree that there are differences in people’s play styles, but my approach has always felt quite inclusive of Gygax and Greenwood to this day that I have a hard time separating the two.

Generally I would find a player that always favors fireball over lightning bolt because it’s “in character” as more one dimensional and playing poorly, although I’m not sure I’d call it out. Most times that somebody justifies a decision be saying “it’s in character” it’s a red flag to me.

People are complex. I would be hard pressed to identify somebody like a wizard that was that shortsighted. Trying to account for intelligence is one thing. But that’s not typically a spell selection thing.

And I like the mental exercise of trying to figure out the different decisions that creatures make with different Intelligence and Wisdom. In the reaction rules I’ve been working on I’ve come to the conclusion that there are three primary factors - instinct vs reason (Intelligence), and irrationality, usually as a result of emotion. Wisdom is a poor substitute for that. Basically, though, we often make poor, irrational, or rash decisions because our emotions are overriding our reason.

Yes, we don’t always make optimal decisions, but I’m not a big fan of trying to “play suboptimal.” Having said that, even Gary states in the PHB that you should play within the limits of your character. I guess I see the personality/character as an additional layer of complexity on top of the framework created in the PHB.

I’m not trying to homogenize things, but on the other hand so also don’t think things are always as exclusive as they might seem.

 

[Lanefan]

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

It didn't, and just saying "AD&D" could mean either and usually means 1e IME.

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?

Not quite sure it's an apt comparison, but whatever... And if nobody brings chips that week?

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.

That characters will progress through various levels is a default assumption of any level-based RPG but not all RPGs build into that assumption that you'll make it to the end stage.

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.

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!

An almost completely different thing.

In bridge (no idea about five hundred, whatever that is) you and your partner are by skill - and no small amount of metagaming e.g. bid systems, signals, etc. - trying to defeat your opponents in a fixed-length game of 13 tricks.

In an RPG you and your party are trying to accomplish goals of some sort, usually, in an open-ended-length game; but above that you as a PC are trying to survive the various risks and challenges posed by the game. The best way to survive is obvious: minimize the risks overall and then further minimize the risks you specifically take as opposed to anyone else. If everyone gets equal xp all the time then the system is rewarding this type of play; to the point where I could easily see a situation where every potentially-trapped door, for example, results in a Canadian standoff - "After you." No, you first, I insist."

But if there's an individual reward - i.e. xp - for taking the risk (whether the risk turns out to be real or not to the PCs) then people will be more inclined to just get on with it.

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")?

Simple - they're more likely to be able to come back next week and play the same character again. And this doesn't just apply to 4e, it's true of any system that has PC death as a possible outcome.

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.

Agreed, but if the system rewards playing your PC cautiously while in effect hoping others don't, how is that any good?

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.

Though 4e is the game you were referring to to start with, what I'm saying applies to any xp-based or level-based game: levels and-or xp are a reward no matter how you look at it, and if they're not a reward for what one's PC actually does in the game and just given out equally regardless of what a PC does then IMO the incentive provided is in fact a negative one in that it discourages heroic play and individual PC bravery and instead encourages over-caution or even individual PC cowardice.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

So like a team sport such as Fußball, Football, or Basketball where a victory trophy results from uneven contributions from the team?

Yes, though in all those sports there's still the incentive to be the Most Valuable Player or the Man of the Match or whatever; an individual award designed to incent better play from each individual.

And this analogy can go another useful step: sure every player on the team gets the same thrill of winning the cup, but come contract negotiation time those individual MVP and MotM awards are gonna count for a lot, with money here vaguely equating to xp in the game in that the players who contribute the most get the most...or at least that's how it should work.

Lan-"I've never heard of a pro sports team where every player gets paid the same"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Generally I would find a player that always favors fireball over lightning bolt because it’s “in character” as more one dimensional and playing poorly, although I’m not sure I’d call it out. Most times that somebody justifies a decision be saying “it’s in character” it’s a red flag to me.

Yet if you want them to play in character, why would simply doing what the character would do raise any kind of flag at all? AFAIC that's exactly what I want - play the character as the character.

One of my currently-in-the-wings PCs is a fire mage - batcrap crazy, considered evil by most (but not, obviously, by herself) in that in her eyes everything would be so much better if it was on fire. And yeah, pretty much every spell she memorizes is either a fire spell or something that'll help her to cast fire spells (or to escape), unless the situation clearly dictates otherwise.

And I like the mental exercise of trying to figure out the different decisions that creatures make with different Intelligence and Wisdom. In the reaction rules I’ve been working on I’ve come to the conclusion that there are three primary factors - instinct vs reason (Intelligence), and irrationality, usually as a result of emotion. Wisdom is a poor substitute for that. Basically, though, we often make poor, irrational, or rash decisions because our emotions are overriding our reason.

I'd add a fourth factor in there: stress.

People - and other creatures - will often make vastly different decisions under stress than they would otherwise.

Lanefan

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, though in all those sports there's still the incentive to be the Most Valuable Player or the Man of the Match or whatever; an individual award designed to incent better play from each individual.

And this analogy can go another useful step: sure every player on the team gets the same thrill of winning the cup, but come contract negotiation time those individual MVP and MotM awards are gonna count for a lot, with money here vaguely equating to xp in the game in that the players who contribute the most get the most...or at least that's how it should work.

D&D is rife with ample ways to award those things, with things such as Titles, Magic Items, or other in-game perks of actual value apart from treating XP as a metacurrency. My own sense of XP is similar to pemerton's in that I think that it primarily acts as a pacing mechanic.

 

[pemerton]

I wonder if this distinction of playstyles is this what pushed Forgotten Realms over Greyhawk in D&D's gaming culture? Players increasingly preferred an Ed Greenwood way of gameplay? But that discussion is perhaps for another day.

I wondered the same things (as your first sentence - I'm disregarding your second sentence!).

Another (related) possibility: TSR, being aware of the change, promoted FR over GH.

 

[Lanefan]

D&D is rife with ample ways to award those things, with things such as Titles, Magic Items, or other in-game perks of actual value apart from treating XP as a metacurrency. My own sense of XP is similar to pemerton's in that I think that it primarily acts as a pacing mechanic.

Titles, yes.

Magic items, not so much. Sure a DM can chuck magic items out there to be found, but how they and the rest of the treasure get divided is entirely up to the players-as-PCs and - with rare exceptions such as direct gifts - I-as-DM can't decide or even have much if any input as to who ends up getting what; never mind what gets kept at all as opposed to being sold off.

In fact using magic items like this can very easily backfire and end up rewarding exactly the wrong PCs. I'll leave for you the small challenge of working out how this is.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

I wondered the same things (as your first sentence - I'm disregarding your second sentence!).

Another (related) possibility: TSR, being aware of the change, promoted FR over GH.

Maybe because by the time FR came out EGG was pretty much persona non grata at TSR, or soon would be - of course they're going to promote someone else's setting over his!

 

[pemerton]

even Gary states in the PHB that you should play within the limits of your character.

I thought you might be referring to something on pp 7 or 8, but with a quick scan couldn't find what you had in mind. But I did find this (on p 8):

Skilled players always make a point of knowing what they are doing, i.e. they have an objective. They co-operate - particularly at lower levels or at higher ones when they must face some particularly stiff challenge - in order to gain their ends. Superior players will not fight everything they meet, for they realize that wit is as good a weapon as the sword or the spell. When weakened by wounds, or nearly out of spells and vital equipment, a clever party will seek to leave the dungeons in order to rearm themselves. (He who runs away lives to fight another day.) When faced with a difficult situation, skilled players will not attempt endless variations on the same theme; when they find the method of problem solving fails to work, they begin to devise other possible solutions.​

We get more indications here of what constitutes skillful play. And unsurprisingly, there is no reference to "inhabiting" or realising the character. It takes author (or even pawn) stance for granted.