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]

Agreed!

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.

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.

If the rules (even a house rule) states the GM, at their discretion, can alter a roll, then it is just as defined as fate points or the GM Intrusion mechanic. It is very broad, but it defines who (the GM), when (at their discretion), and what (can alter or overrule the dice). These criteria are even in the AD&D DMG.

You are not breaking a rule, any more than the concept that specific rules overrule general rules. You are engaging a rule that overrides another rule. It is an exception.

Take baseball. When you break down the structure of the rules it works like this:

If the batter hits the ball, they may move to 1st base.
Unless the ball is foul, in which case it is a strike.
Or if a player catches it before it touches the ground, then they are out.
Or if the ball is thrown to first base before you reach it, then they are out.
Or if somebody tags you before you reach first base, then they are out.

Or AD&D:

The result of the die rolled is as shown;
Unless there are modifiers due to abilities, magic, or other circumstances such as cover.
Or if the GM overrules the roll for any reason.

The structure of the rule is the same. This is the result unless one of these other circumstances apply. One of the circumstances happens to be entirely up to the discretion of the GM.

This is not altered by additional rules, such as:

The GM can roll the dice in secret if desired or appropriate.
The result of the die rolled is as shown;
Unless there are modifiers due to abilities, magic, or other circumstances such as cover.
Or if the GM overrules the roll for any reason.

Secrecy isn’t a defining factor. Other things can be secret but not alter the results.

Deception as well, which is different than fraudulent or secret. Bluffing in poker isn’t cheating.

A rule that overrides another rule isn’t cheating either. Stealing a base in baseball isn’t cheating. The rule is you can’t just run from one base to the next. That is overruled by the rule that states you can as long as you best the ball to that base.

The fact that people incorrectly use the term is also irrelevant. We should be championing the use of proper terminology. Not perpetuating the wrong terminology, especially when that terminology has negative connotations.

Overruling a die roll is not being dishonest. Especially in cases like mine where the die is out in the open for all to see. But even when it’s not, it’s not dishonest.

There is no requirement for such a rule to be equivalent to the rules the PC uses. The mechanic is clear: the GM makes a decision, they overrule the dice. No other mechanic other than defining the rule is needed.

You might want a more restrictive rule, and that’s fair. You might want a rule that doesn’t include all of the criteria of: at will; at their discretion; hidden; deceptive.

But none of these criteria, alone or together, constitute cheating. Only in the absence of a rule to allow them, is it cheating.

Cheating cannot by definition be institutionalized. If it’s allowed by the rules it is not cheating.

 

[pemerton]

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.

It's not a default assumption in Moldvay basic that a character will progress through levels. Many, perhaps most, PCs will die young; and even for those that don't die, there's the possibility of not finding much treasure (through bad luck or bad play) and hence not levelling.

In Moldvay Basic, levels have to be earned (in the sense that a player has to play well to earn the XP to level his/her PC). That's not the case in 4e. Levels aren't something you earn, any more than turning up to a session is something that is earned.

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

<snip>

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.

All I can do is repeat - not all RPGing is wargaming.

Starting with the last sentence - in some RPGs PC death is a possibility, but only if the player deliberately stakes it. In those systems there is no generic risk of death, and hence the only way the player might risk not being able to play the same character is if s/he choose to put that on the table.

And then turning to the main thesis: it's simply not true that, in 4e, you as a PC are trying to survive the various risks and challenges posed by the game. It's not a wargame. It's not a survival game. It's a game about impacting the (imagined) world. If you don't play your PC, there is no payoff. If someone wants to turn up week-on-week and just sit in the corner I'm not going to begrudge them the oxygen. If they want to write on a bit of paper that they're a 20th level oxygen-breather, well they can be my guest in respect of that also.

In the meantime, the rest of us will actually be playing the game.

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

4e does not reward playing your PC cautiously, any more than it rewards sitting on the couch watching TV.

You know all those people who complained that they don't like 4e because it incentivises gonzo action of over-the-top heroics? I don't share their aesthetic preferences, but they're right about what the game incentivises.

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

This is mere assertion, and false at that.

Alll levelling is in changing the numbers on your sheet, and changing the content of the story that is being told about your PC. Is that a reward? Yes, if it's hard to get and people you hang out with value the skill of getting it - which is how it seems to have worked at Gygax's table. No, if the number on your sheet is just a proxy for the number of sessions you've attended, and if it's part of the plan from the get-go that the story will change in those sorts of ways.

Instead of trying to fit all RPGs into some procrustean framework, look at how they actually work. Instead of insisting that something that is not a reward is one, why not ask what the actual reward is, what the payoff is, for playing 4e?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

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

Good point.

I don’t know your character, but adding in insanity is a different factor altogether. For a non-insane (or otherwise impaired) character the majority of the time I hear a player justify “it’s in character,” there’s usually a thin justification.

I have an impaired condition that requires you to make a Wisdom check or make a poor decision. Insanity in my campaign usually has a triggering a check. Most people aren’t consistently crazy and always make a poor decision.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

Pg 7:

“You act out the game as this character, staying within your "god-given abilities", and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment). You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Folstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic!”

This also touches on personality, but admittedly it’s a small part of the book.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Sure, but this is not a problem that I would likely encounter given that I generally use milestones anyway. Nor have I ever encountered the timid playstyle from milestones that you fearfully predict that this engenders. But there are ways to create character and campaign-specific milestones and milestone rewards.

Dungeon World for examples rewards XP via the Bond/Alignment System. Does your character achieve what they are wanting to achieve or embrace a particular aspect of their character?

Players in Fate have an array of milestone rewards: short-term (~end of a session), medium-term (~end of a scenario/plot event), and long-term (~end of a campaign arc). And they can "advance" their character in different ways depending upon the milestone (e.g., rewritting their aspects, getting a new Fate point/stunt, etc.).

Meanwhile, the Cypher System (primarily Numenera) attaches XP to discovery (e.g., ancient relics, creatures, community-building, etc.) and accepting GM Intrusions. It would be odd for XP to reflect your personal contribution in such a framework.

As an aside to the entire discussion, I increasingly find it peculiar - though it makes sense as a relic of XP = gold - that XP charts use such high number values. Why couldn't or doesn't D&D just deflate the values, even if just one decimal place? Both in terms of what is required and what monsters selflessly sacrifice for player advancement. For example, why does a baboon (challenge rating 0) need be worth 10 XP? Why not make that 1 XP?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Sure, but this is not a problem that I would likely encounter given that I generally use milestones anyway. Nor have I ever encountered the timid playstyle from milestones that you fearfully predict that this engenders. But there are ways to create character and campaign-specific milestones and milestone rewards.

Dungeon World for examples rewards XP via the Bond/Alignment System. Does your character achieve what they are wanting to achieve or embrace a particular aspect of their character?

Players in Fate have an array of milestone rewards: short-term (~end of a session), medium-term (~end of a scenario/plot event), and long-term (~end of a campaign arc). And they can "advance" their character in different ways depending upon the milestone (e.g., rewritting their aspects, getting a new Fate point/stunt, etc.).

Meanwhile, the Cypher System (primarily Numenera) attaches XP to discovery (e.g., ancient relics, creatures, community-building, etc.) and accepting GM Intrusions. It would be odd for XP to reflect your personal contribution in such a framework.

As an aside to the entire discussion, I increasingly find it peculiar - though it makes sense as a relic of XP = gold - that XP charts use such high number values. Why couldn't or doesn't D&D just deflate the values, even if just one decimal place? Both in terms of what is required and what monsters selflessly sacrifice for player advancement. For example, why does a baboon (challenge rating 0) need be worth 10 XP? Why not make that 1 XP?

I was thinking maybe some sort of backward compatibility, but it doesn’t look like that works. Why have CRs less than
1 for that matter? Pathfinder has 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, and 1/8. Seems like starting with the lowest at 1 and working up from there would make sense.

 

[pemerton]

Pg 7:

“You act out the game as this character, staying within your "god-given abilities", and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment). You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Folstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic!”

This also touches on personality, but admittedly it’s a small part of the book.

When you say it touches on peronality, do you mean the reference to alignment?

Why have CRs less than 1 for that matter? Pathfinder has 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, and 1/8. Seems like starting with the lowest at 1 and working up from there would make sense.

I'm not sure about PF, but in 5e I think it's to preserve a type of equivalence of CR to PC level - ie CR1 foes are apt, in some distinctive way, to be used as opposition for 1st level PCs. CRs below 1 then show that such creatures lack the relative aptness.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

When you say it touches on peronality, do you mean the reference to alignment?

Well, that’s one thing. But more the explicit statement that you aren’t yourself, you are this character.

 

[Aldarc]

If the rules (even a house rule) states the GM, at their discretion, can alter a roll, then it is just as defined as fate points or the GM Intrusion mechanic. It is very broad, but it defines who (the GM), when (at their discretion), and what (can alter or overrule the dice). These criteria are even in the AD&D DMG.

No, it's not. In the cases of Fate and Cypher, the GM engages particular mechanics.

You are not breaking a rule, any more than the concept that specific rules overrule general rules. You are engaging a rule that overrides another rule. It is an exception.

But this is not engaging a delineated mechanic, which is my point. It is about the GM's ability to ignore delineated mechanics in a way that is detached from the mechanics. These are not equivalent scenarios.

Take baseball. When you break down the structure of the rules it works like this:

The structure of the rule is the same. This is the result unless one of these other circumstances apply. One of the circumstances happens to be entirely up to the discretion of the GM.

Only superficially so IMHO.

Bluffing in poker isn’t cheating.

This seems like a false equivalence.

The fact that people incorrectly use the term is also irrelevant. We should be championing the use of proper terminology. Not perpetuating the wrong terminology, especially when that terminology has negative connotations.

Oh, and here I was trying to purposefully propagate what I consider improper terminology.

But none of these criteria, alone or together, constitute cheating. Only in the absence of a rule to allow them, is it cheating.

Cheating cannot by definition be institutionalized. If it’s allowed by the rules it is not cheating.

You seem to be under the impression that if you repeat something often enough then it becomes true or that I will suddenly believe it. And this often appears true for people persistent in the idea that the DM can't cheat. But maybe your sanity will prevail if you repeat the same act over and over again while expecting different results? Perhaps it is time for us to agree to disagree because I do not see us coming to agreement or consensus over this. Will I walk away from your post and still regard fudging as institutionalized cheating? Yes.

I was thinking maybe some sort of backward compatibility, but it doesn’t look like that works. Why have CRs less than 1 for that matter? Pathfinder has 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, and 1/8. Seems like starting with the lowest at 1 and working up from there would make sense.

Agreed.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

No, it's not. In the cases of Fate and Cypher, the GM engages particular mechanics.

But this is not engaging a delineated mechanic, which is my point. It is about the GM's ability to ignore delineated mechanics in a way that is detached from the mechanics. These are not equivalent scenarios.

Only superficially so IMHO.

[qutoe]Bluffing in poker isn’t cheating.

This seems like a false equivalence.

Oh, and here I was trying to purposefully propagate what I consider improper terminology.

You seem to be under the impression that if you repeat something often enough then it becomes true or that I will suddenly believe it. And this often appears true for people persistent in the idea that the DM can't cheat. But maybe your sanity will prevail if you repeat the same act over and over again while expecting different results? Perhaps it is time for us to agree to disagree because I do not see us coming to agreement or consensus over this. Will I walk away from your post and still regard fudging as institutionalized cheating? Yes.

Agreed.[/QUOTE]

The poker thing is to point out that there are rules that permit deception in games.

I’m still wondering about how I’m being deceptive when I roll the dice in the open and everybody knows when I overrule them.

We can agree to disagree, but I’m still curious if you’re willing to answer.

If the rule states that a GM has 3 times that they can overrule the dice during a session, or adventure, is that cheating?