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?

 

[Kobold Boots]

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.

Being obtuse wasn't the point. Being logical was. Appreciate the difference from your side though.

 

[Kobold Boots]

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.

Which is the reason he's spent more time on my ignore list than any other person on the forums by at least a factor of 3. I do clean out my list every month or two, but he's definitely a repeat visitor.

Which only speaks to how passionate he is about what he's talking about. It's a credit to him; but when we're on opposite sides of a discussion, I'm far better off not seeing his stuff as I can be just as passionate about logic.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Part of it entails, or so I imagine, a growing recognition of the extenuating circumstances of play in the randomization element of die resolution mechanics. If the game was designed with the expectation that the randomness of the die result should result in the PCs succeeding 70 percent of the time, but the players' die results actually generate a 30 percent success rate (or lower), then that can throw a giant wrench into how smoothly the game runs. And so we are dealing with decades of mechanics and rules about how to patch or autocorrect this design flaw/feature. And clearly many people are happy in this thread with the answer that props up their own power and authority: "DM, DM über alles, über alles in dem Spiel..."

 

[Kobold Boots]

Part of it entails, or so I imagine, a growing recognition of the extenuating circumstances of play in the randomization element of die resolution mechanics. If the game was designed with the expectation that the randomness of the die result should result in the PCs succeeding 70 percent of the time, but the players' die results actually generate a 30 percent success rate (or lower), then that can throw a giant wrench into how smoothly the game runs. And so we are dealing with decades of mechanics and rules about how to patch or autocorrect this design flaw/feature. And clearly many people are happy in this thread with the answer that props up their own power and authority: "DM, DM über alles, über alles in dem Spiel..."

Well, I'd suppose that folks are happy with it for two reasons.

1. It would end up happening anyway.
2. The rules since inception have been written in support of it. (1977 onward)

.. why German?.. what are you trying to connote? Be careful.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, I'd suppose that folks are happy with it for two reasons.

1. It would end up happening anyway.

Possibly.

2. The rules since inception have been written in support of it. (1977 onward)

Yeah, the "it's always just been this way" defense. But I generally don't find this compelling or satisfying.

.. why German?.. what are you trying to connote? Be careful.

Because the opening lyrics of "Das Deutschlandlied" captures a bit of the attitude I am alluding to. Because I have been living in Vienna, Austria for the past years. And because a host of other reasons apart from the one you are tiptoeing around.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Possibly.

Yeah, the "it's always just been this way" defense. But I generally don't find this compelling or satisfying.

Because the opening lyrics of "Das Deutschlandlied" captures a bit of the attitude I am alluding to. Because I have been living in Vienna, Austria for the past years. And because a host of other reasons apart from the one you are tiptoeing around.

1. I'm "tiptoeing" because I don't want to assume and because it would be really offensive if you were aiming that way intentionally.
2. "it's always been this way defense".

I wouldn't call it a defense. It is what it is. When the designers of the game decide to reverse course and put something in the rules that says "The DM has to do things this way", then I'll be the first person to jump on the "no changing die rolls" bandwagon. If anything, the people who actually read the rulebook should be attacking the "DM cheats" position a few people are stumping with venom.

But here's the funny thing - They don't have to. The rules do it for them. That's why it doesn't need a defense. Logic, an amazing thing.

The only thing illogical from my perspective is that I'm replying in this thread. But that's more my weakness because I can't stand seeing nonsense (regardless of whether or not I agree with it) being posted without a retort.

Sometimes its better to just turn off wifi.
KB

 

[prosfilaes]

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.

In the definition of "cheating" in my idiolect, if it's "expected and generally accepted as perfectly fine", it can't be cheating. Fine, your idiolect is different. That doesn't mean that we're doublethinking anything.

Someone who cheats is a filthy, low-down, good-for-nothing cheat. Is it doublethink to disagree with that, or is it just a different definition of the word cheat?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

I know what you think. I wasn’t asking you at this point. You obviously believe any mechanic that refills a die is cheating. Okidoki. I will forever disagree with that. At this point I’m trying to get to the finer points that others besides you who believe that some rules allowing rerolling the dice is actually following the rules which is, you know, not cheating.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I know what you think. I wasn’t asking you at this point. You obviously believe any mechanic that refills a die is cheating. Okidoki. I will forever disagree with that. At this point I’m trying to get to the finer points that others besides you who believe that some rules allowing rerolling the dice is actually following the rules which is, you know, not cheating.

I'm past the point where I think he actually believes what he's saying and well into the territory where he's committed to an argument and supporting it just so he dies on the hill.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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

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 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.

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.

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."

Ok, I’m not trying to exasperate you. Your definition of cheating seems to mirror (if not exactly perhaps) [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s in that any modification of the die after it is thrown is “cheating.” I would think that an advantage mechanic where two dice are thrown and you pick the better is not to either of you, but I’m not 100% sure on that guess.

To answer your other point I’ve already stated that I do that. It’s built into our critical miss rule in particular. If a player rolls a crit miss, they decide what happens, albeit with my approval, although I’m not sure I’ve ever vetoed it. Even when I do choose to overrule the dice, I usually learn them decide what the alternate bad stuff is. In the example I gave when the character was hit with acid gas when triggering the trap, their answer was, “no, I was right there, my face inches away from it. I’m an idiot, and I’m taking the full hit.”

The result was death, but it played out over more than 24 hours as they tried to save her.

The bottom line for us is that, like Gary stated, we don’t want to slavishly abide to a freakish roll of the die. The dice are “right” the majority of the time. So much so that while we could use a different mechanic, the downsides would be too numerous. So we simply acknowledge that the rule of dice isn’t perfect and adjust where we need to. We don’t question them on every death, just the ones that seem out of place.

I thought of another rule that I’m curious about. I’m sure [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] considers this cheating so he need not answer unless I’m wrong.

Was the 3e mechanic to confirm a critical hit, or just an alternate method of testing a skill. For that matter, the 4e skill test mechanic is more or less an extension of that mechanic, in that one roll of the die is not accepted without a second.

While I understand the reasoning behind the confirmation roll (and to me it’s 100% not cheating), I don’t like the mechanic because of the way is affects the play, and it adds die rolls. We, instead, require a critical hit to be 5 or more needed to hit. It addresses the specific problems the confirmation roll did, without the let down or extra roll. You pretty much know when you can’t make or take a critical hit, but also that circumstances can alter that chance.

I also think it’s a decent example of the sort of thing we’re talking about. There’s what I’ll call a soft “cheat” or fudge, in that it’s allowed, but alters the play experience, and the hard “Cheat” which is somebody breaking the rules for their benefit in a way that’s not allowed in the rules, and is in bad faith.

If we’re saying that the “common” terminology must rule, even when I believe that it is improper usage of the dictionary defined term, than so be it. I think it’s both insulting and actually makes disgusting the merit of various “legal cheat” rules more difficult to use the term in that manner.

I will say that I have no doubt that you, and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] don’t mean it an insulting way, but that doesn’t change the fact that use of the term in that manner will offend some.