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]

When [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] argues that using fudging instead of cheating is doublethink, that's a sign that there's no logical discussion to be had, he just wants to use the word with the emotional weight he wants.

Not sure why Hussar is getting singled-out for something that he alone has not put forth. I have said as much as well. But retreading that argument seems pointless when there is already a back catalog of pages on that point.

 

[prosfilaes]

Not sure why Hussar is getting singled-out for something that he alone has not put forth. I have said as much as well. But retreading that argument seems pointless when there is already a back catalog of pages on that point.

So you want to claim the credit for attacking people for using the dictionary definition of "cheat", but decline to explain why that was reasonable, or why you didn't use yourself as an example of people arguing over the definition of English words?

 

[aramis erak]

Sure they are. The table makes the rules. Official rules aren't sacred. They can be altered or removed without it being cheating.



They can't be. An outside observer may not understand, but if everyone at the table is doing it, the outside observer can't call it cheating and be correct.

If it's part of organized play, it absolutely can and should be called cheating to not use the rules.

 

[Hussar]

It's right there in black and white. They have a land speed, but no fly speed.



It's not pedantic. It's your logic. Altering or breaking a rule with another rule is cheating. You don't get to cherry pick which rules that break other rules are cheating. All are, or none are.

No, altering a DIE ROLL AFTER THE FACT is cheating.

 

[Hussar]

So you want to claim the credit for attacking people for using the dictionary definition of "cheat", but decline to explain why that was reasonable, or why you didn't use yourself as an example of people arguing over the definition of English words?

So, secretly altering a die roll after the fact during the game in order to affect a different outcome is somehow not cheating?

You have a quite different definition of cheating from me. It's:

a) dishonest in nature because you are keeping the activity secret from the players
b) self-serving because you are attempting to create a specific outcome that you think is better.

In what way is this not cheating? Oh, right, it's not cheating because it's allowed by the rules which have been changed over the years to rebrand cheating as "fudging".

Ok.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If it's part of organized play, it absolutely can and should be called cheating to not use the rules.

In the current D&D organized play program, AL, the rules in question are 5e, and in 5e the most basic rule for resolution is that the DM decides success or failure, calling for a roll only if he judges the outcome uncertain (and setting the DC). So the DM is within his rights to not even call for a roll. It's not much of a stretch to call for (or make behind the screen) a 'placebo' roll, or call for a roll and realize "nah, that wasn't uncertain, afterall..." The broader 5e philosophy embraces 'Rulings, not Rules," so yeah, it's not cheating to overrule the rules, it's just following the rules, that say, in essence, the DM decides what the rules really are. FWIW.

Obviously, D&D isn't the only organized play program out there, and there are certainly less permissive systems out there, too.

No, altering a DIE ROLL AFTER THE FACT is cheating.

Not if the rules gave you the option of deciding the result without consulting the die in the first place, or explicitly gave you the option to alter said die roll. RPGs are often pretty wide-open in the authority they give GMs. Those that aren't, can always be modified by the GM. "Do you use any variants?" "Oh, sure, a few..."

So, secretly altering a die roll after the fact during the game in order to affect a different outcome is somehow not cheating?

Correct. It's making a ruling notwithstanding the system.

You have a quite different definition of cheating from me. It's:

a) dishonest in nature because you are keeping the activity secret from the players

Keeping secrets is not dishonest when the role you've assumed requires it and there's an expectation that you will do so. Any RPG where you traditionally put up a DM screen certainly qualifies.

b) self-serving because you are attempting to create a specific outcome that you think is better.

...that you think is better, for the players' experience of the game, so it's altruistic, not self-serving.

 

[Lanefan]

Because you’ve said that an Inspiration die is cheating. Which is the exact same mechanic as confirming a critical.

It’s a critical, wait, not it’s not.

In fairness, it's the other way around: "It's not a critical, wait, yes it is!"

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Correct. It's making a ruling notwithstanding the system.

More semantic gymnastics...

Keeping secrets is not dishonest when the role you've assumed requires it and there's an expectation that you will do so. Any RPG where you traditionally put up a DM screen certainly qualifies.

You use a DM's screen because you don't want the players seeing your notes. Using it to alter outcomes after the fact just makes it easier to che.... err... make a ruling notwithstanding the system.

...that you think is better, for the players' experience of the game, so it's altruistic, not self-serving.

Ok, fine boys and girls. I should have given this up long ago but it was just too much fun watching the knots people will tie themselves in to avoid the word cheat.

I'm out.

 

[Tony Vargas]

More semantic gymnastics...

A legitimate GM function in some systems.

You use a DM's screen because you don't want the players seeing your notes.

Because you're keeping secrets. Lot's of 'em. In the context of GMing, keeping secrets is not dishonest. That can include keeping details of a resolution method secret.

Ok, fine boys and girls. I should have given this up long ago but it was just too much fun watching the knots people will tie themselves in to avoid the word cheat.
I'm out.

Hey, if we didn't like facilitating other people's fun, we wouldn't run games - and fudge results in them - so much. Glad you had a good time.

 

[Lanefan]

This is another of those cases where I want to ask, have you actually played or even read the rules for the game you're talking about?

And do you have any actual evidence?

Have you played 4e? Or played with the sort of "milestone" systems [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is talking about? If not, how do you know what affect those games and those systems have on player behaviour?

Do you know how Dungeon World awards XP for "embracing an aspect of one's character"? Here is the relevant text (from p 78 of the rulebook):

End of Session
When you reach the end of a session, choose one of your bonds that you feel is resolved (completely explored, no longer relevant, or otherwise). Ask the player of the character you have the bond with if they agree. If they do, mark XP and write a new bond with whomever you wish.

Once bonds have been updated look at your alignment. If you fulfilled that alignment at least once this session, mark XP. Then answer these three questions as a group:

• Did we learn something new and important about the world?
• Did we overcome a notable monster or enemy?
• Did we loot a memorable treasure?

For each “yes” answer everyone marks XP.​

No favouritism. No GM discretion required. And (with respect to bond XP) a strong incentive to character-focused interaction between players so as to reach mutual agreement that bonds are being fully explored and resolved.

And a strong incentive to metagame, as a probably unintended side effect.

On first glance that's actually a cool-sounding system. But I stop and think about the game I play in and - knowing the people involved - how it'd work there if implemented. There's 6 players (plus the DM). Two of them would for sure find reasons to make bonds only with each other about 95% of the time and would find a way to fulfill them every time, or at least say they were fulfilled. Another two would to a lesser extent do likewise - they'd almost always bond with each other but the fulfillment would be more genuine. And the remaining two - of which I'd be one - would be kinda stuck, as our characters don't often get along that well.

I do like the three group questions. Were it me, of course, I'd add a corollary question to each one: who (as PC) actually took part in that activity e.g. did we all help in finding that significant treasure or was it just done by the Rogue on her own?

No. In 4e there is no default assumption that players will try to progress through levels. It's not something you have to try to do; it's a side effect of playing the game.

Until you don't, or can't, because your PC has died or otherwise been rendered unfit to continue.

Likewise AD&D no one has to try to make gametime pass - the marking off of turns, hours and days is something the GM does as part of the course of play.

Time passes and is marked off, but the "speed" of that time passage is up to the players. If they want to do every little bit of downtime activity in great detail that next three game-time weeks will take a lot longer to play out at the table than if they just tell me "we take the next three weeks off for some R&R".

I'm talking about PC build.

Where I'm talking about what I'm familiar with: the modules as designed.

Have you played 4e? Have you undertaken a systematic consideration of how the system works?

For these purposes, neither is necessary. A simple basic read-over of the rulebooks (the first round) and some of the modules tells me all I need to know: the game is, at its root, still out to kill the PCs.

The goal in 4e is not survival.

Survival is a goal that must be achieved before any other goal even becomes relevant.

The goal is to impact the fiction.

Knowing the type of games you like I can see why you'd say this - but remember you're looking at it through your fiction-coloured glasses.

One could say that "to impact the fiction" is more or less the goal of any RPG...except unless the system does not allow PC death at all it's always a secondary goal to survival. Which I guess means I'd better ask: do you allow PC death in your games that the player doesn't see coming and-or hasn't pre-approved?

If yes, we can carry on.

If no, we might as well quit here because I'm talking about apples while you're talking about motorboats.

Player characters have an extreme depth of resources for both survival purposes (healing surges, and various abilities to unlock them) and active purposes (skill bonuses, various powers, etc). Expending the former is simply a means to an end.

Yes, I already mentioned that 4e as designed makes it easier for the PCs to survive. But there's a yawning gulf between easier (the game's out to kill you but it probably won't) and guaranteed (the game can't kill you unless you let it, or at all).

As soon as the game can kill your PC without your-as-player pre-approval, the basic goal is survival.

And those healing surges etc are not evenly allocated. The game assumes that some PCs will "take the heat" and other won't. If a player wants to play a character who doesn't "take the heat", then s/he builds a rogue or a ranger (of a certain sort) or a wizard. But someone who builds (say) a fighter or a warlord or a paladin and then tries to avoid "taking the heat" is just dealing him-/herself out of the game.

This is true of all editions. In 1e arcane casters were expected to stay well clear of the heat, for example.

But I've seen far too many supposedly rough tough PCs head for cover when danger nears and leave their less-sturdy comrades to take the heat to not consider it a problem.

Not to mention, that a big part of both the encounter design in 4e, and the mechanical design of opponents (both monsters/NPCs and traps/hazards), is to allow the GM to bring the heat to the players. And then the players themselves have resources to respond to that, to defend one another if they want to, or to expose others to risk if they want to.

The encounter design in 4e, from what I've seen of it through running various modules, is generally quite good; and it does bring the heat and it does try to kill PCs. A DM running those encounters in such a way as to spare the PCs is kinda letting the game down.

Less important point: that person will not become higher level than everyone else. The default in 4e is that everyone is the same level.

I'm aware that's the default, and it's one of the major reasons I would never run 4e as written. There's a whole bunch of very logical and organic in-game reasons* why the characters in a party would, over time, tend towards not always being the same level; and I don't want to arbitrarily over-write that.

* - some of which can cause problems of their own, which are what I'd rather be trying to solve

More important point, and reiteration: if, in 4e, I want to play a "cautious character" then I just build one. A rogue or ranger would be a good start, or certain sorts of warlock. But the play of the game is not going to make me safer than anyone else. Caution is an aspect of PC colour and personality and method, not a power-gaming tactic. Which goes back to the point that not all RPGs are wargames.

War game, sport game, whatever: if your character doesn't contribute it shouldn't get xp.

And what I'm saying, I suppose, is that in a way over-cautious (i.e. cowardly) gaming *is* a power-gaming tactic, only way more passive-aggressive than how the term is usually applied. She who fights and runs away lives to fight another day...even if in her running away she's left her (now ex-)companions to take the heat for her and maybe even get killed off.