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?

 

[Maxperson]

This repeated claim that GMs, as such, cannot cheat - that they have carte blanche to declare at any time that the content of the shared fiction is X, or that the outcome of some resolution process is Y, where X and Y can be whatever the GM wants - is just bizarre.

Bizarre or not, it's the rules. Many groups play that way.

Perhaps there are some RPG groups, somewhere, who play like that. But there are very many who do not.

Not "perhaps some," but many groups play that way. And as you note, many don't and that's okay. The vast majority of groups don't play 100% by the rules, and that's just one rule you don't use.

In that sort of game, what is the function of the players? To make suggestions to the GM as to what should be allowed as part of the shared fiction? In what sense is that even roleplaying, if even the truth in the fiction of statements about what a PC thinks or does is entirely dependent upon the discretion of the GM?

It's traditional RPG. The function of players is what Gygax started in 1e. Gygax stated in 1e that the purpose of RPG is roleplaying, yet told the players in the PHB that the DM controls everything and their only recourse if they don't like it is to quit.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

3e gives the DM the power to alter the rules as he sees fit. Call it rule 0, rule .5, rule 1 or whatever. The DM can do it.

 

[Aldarc]

First, I apologize that I screwed up the text formatting. I tried fixing it, but evidently not before you replied.

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

In poker, the deception and bluffing is a metagame byproduct of the rules as written that has developed. The deception of bluffing is permitted largely in the game's culture because it is regarded as a sign of skilled play (or dumb luck).

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.

I have here in mind the cultural practice in the hobby on the whole rather than your table, though I would still consider this cheating. And I say this as someone who has fudged out in the open in front of their players within the past month as well. There is an awareness that you are breaking with the rules, though it is informally allowed.

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

I'm admittedly losing the will to answer because I fear that we are just running around in circles at this point due to some fundamental differences.

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

I would call it a system of institutionalized cheating but one more conducive to my own play preferences as it creates a mechanical delineation that places a cap or check on the GM's autocratic powers. It also forces the GM to make their own choices as to what times and occasions warrant their expenditure of a "cheat point," a "GM intrusion," or a "mulligan." I also think that this is more psychologically acceptable for players, as this preserves their sense of accomplishments. The only issue that I could see arising is if players get upset that the cheat point was not used to preserve their character. I also think that this is a mechanic that would benefit GMs and players.

And this is something potentially worth considering. If the primary justification GMs make for fudging is for the sake of the players' jollies - to prevent an untimely death, unhappy string of bad luck rolls, etc - why can't some of this "fudging power" become apportioned to players instead such that they can decide when it serves their own jollies when it pertains to their character? As I have also said as much before somewhere in the first half of this thread where I noted that I have encountered less cheating from players in systems that provide "mechanisms for the player to not only positively influence the story in their favor but also to mitigate harmful circumstances produced by botched rolls or the GM's narrative framing."

 

[Hussar]

If someone has a character with the Luck domain (Pathfinder), is it cheating if they use their power to reroll a d20?



The fact that you cheat in friendly games is disturbing; what makes you think it's okay? If you want to define it as cheating, then you shouldn't be doing it.

Yup. It's institutionalised cheating. It's altering the outcomes of random generation.

It's okay because, in RPG's, it's expected. It's no different than lying in Liar's Dice or bluffing in Poker. It's expected and generally accepted as perfectly fine.

Doesn't change the fact that it's still cheating.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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

YES IT IS. Good grief, this is the third time I've answered this question.

If you are changing the results of a random generation AFTER THE FACT, then it's cheating. How is it not? This would be called cheating in every single other circumstance. The only reason that it's not called cheating in RPG's is because people get all hot and bothered by the term. So, it's called fudging, or reroll mechanics or whatever other doublethink term people need to use to avoid calling a duck a duck.

Embrace it. We started out cheating in RPG's from pretty much day 1. The only thing that's change from the 70s to now is that we've incorporated cheating into the rules and called it something else.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Yup. It's institutionalised cheating. It's altering the outcomes of random generation.

It's okay because, in RPG's, it's expected. It's no different than lying in Liar's Dice or bluffing in Poker. It's expected and generally accepted as perfectly fine.

Doesn't change the fact that it's still cheating.

Yes, actually. It does.

You can not cheat by using a function of the game the way it's written and intended to be used.

"Instituationalized cheating" does not mean what you think it means to at least me, but I'd wager a large number of people once presented with logic wouldn't agree with your interpretation.

Thanks,
KB

 

[Kobold Boots]

YES IT IS. Good grief, this is the third time I've answered this question.

If you are changing the results of a random generation AFTER THE FACT, then it's cheating. How is it not? This would be called cheating in every single other circumstance. The only reason that it's not called cheating in RPG's is because people get all hot and bothered by the term. So, it's called fudging, or reroll mechanics or whatever other doublethink term people need to use to avoid calling a duck a duck.

Embrace it. We started out cheating in RPG's from pretty much day 1. The only thing that's change from the 70s to now is that we've incorporated cheating into the rules and called it something else.

Changing the results of a random generation happens in nearly every D20 roll in D&D. Hit rolls have modifiers. Damage rolls have modifiers. Skill checks have modifiers. All of these modifiers are codified in the rules system. Therefore it's not cheating and it's not called cheating because it's built into the rules.

Using this logic, then any DM judgment that affects random generation is also not cheating; because it's allowed in the rules set. The only cheating inherent in the rules system is when players do things with their die rolling or results that is not codified in the rules via modifier and those things are not blessed by the DM as being valid.

Like you Hussar, I fail to see why this has to be restated a bunch of times. It's not like we're debating something that isn't widely supported by every version of the rules since the dawn of time and it's not just you doing it.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, actually. It does.

You can not cheat by using a function of the game the way it's written and intended to be used.

"Instituationalized cheating" does not mean what you think it means to at least me, but I'd wager a large number of people once presented with logic wouldn't agree with your interpretation.

Thanks,
KB

What does it mean to you? I am using it to mean that the cheats that we did fairly commonly in earlier editions have been rolled into the game mechanics. Instead of cheating or fudging or whatever, now you are doing exactly the same thing, but, it's part of the rule set.

And, somehow, through some mental gymnastics I can't quite wrap my head around, that suddenly makes it not cheating. If I, as a player, not the DM, rerolled a roll in 2e, that would flat out be cheating. ((Granted, 2e has a LOT of rules, so, I'm going with my fuzzy memory that there weren't reroll mechanics in the game, so, I might be wrong but, work with me here))

But, in actual play, allowing rerolls became fairly common practice in many circumstances. So, what was cheating was incorporated into the game. Thus, institutionalized cheating.

Is that clearer?

 

[Hussar]

Changing the results of a random generation happens in nearly every D20 roll in D&D. Hit rolls have modifiers. Damage rolls have modifiers. Skill checks have modifiers. All of these modifiers are codified in the rules system. Therefore it's not cheating and it's not called cheating because it's built into the rules.

Using this logic, then any DM judgment that affects random generation is also not cheating; because it's allowed in the rules set. The only cheating inherent in the rules system is when players do things with their die rolling or results that is not codified in the rules via modifier and those things are not blessed by the DM as being valid.

Like you Hussar, I fail to see why this has to be restated a bunch of times. It's not like we're debating something that isn't widely supported by every version of the rules since the dawn of time and it's not just you doing it.

Please don't be obtuse. When I say, "changing the results of random generation", that obviously doesn't doesn't apply to modifiers to the roll since the random generation INCLUDES the modifier. It doesn't matter if I roll a d20+4 or d20+14. The cheating is changing the d20 roll after the roll.

 

[Kobold Boots]

What does it mean to you? I am using it to mean that the cheats that we did fairly commonly in earlier editions have been rolled into the game mechanics. Instead of cheating or fudging or whatever, now you are doing exactly the same thing, but, it's part of the rule set.

And, somehow, through some mental gymnastics I can't quite wrap my head around, that suddenly makes it not cheating. If I, as a player, not the DM, rerolled a roll in 2e, that would flat out be cheating. ((Granted, 2e has a LOT of rules, so, I'm going with my fuzzy memory that there weren't reroll mechanics in the game, so, I might be wrong but, work with me here))

But, in actual play, allowing rerolls became fairly common practice in many circumstances. So, what was cheating was incorporated into the game. Thus, institutionalized cheating.

Is that clearer?

Yes. But I think there's a difference between what the rules allow (DMs can't cheat) and what I'd consider cheating. (My opinion follows)

1. If a player re-rolled without the blessing of the DM, that's cheating.
2. If the DM re-rolls without the blessing of the player, in order to avoid negative outcomes for the player, that's not cheating.
3. If the DM re-rolls without the blessing of the player, in order to screw the player over, that's cheating in my book.

Technically, both two and three are not cheating according to the rules in every edition. Even Basic D&D in 1980 had a line where players needed to understand that the DM was the final arbiter of all rules and the rules were guidelines.

However, because of that, if you were to ask my opinion I'd say that my role as DM is to ensure everyone has the right level of challenge that they like in order to have fun. If I'm intentionally trying to screw the player, which means I don't care about his or her enjoyment, then I'm cheating. If I know that the player likes harder games and wants to overcome the harder game, then it may not be cheating.

But that's for my game, I'm the DM and as an extension of the rules which as written is my right, I'm not cheating so long as my players are happy.