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...

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?

61MMguCyhiL._AC_SL1500_.jpg

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?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Sadras

Legend
Did defeating that strawman feel satisfying? Good.

The word farcical was yours. I merely played up to it. :p

That position seems far more moderate than a number of other voices in this debate.

Maybe. As I said - I find cheating a problem, but is is not a problem that would not be solved through this or that method. Clashing personalities between players (not necessarily friends) which threaten to divide the playgroup is of course a much larger problem and unlikely to be solved in my experience.

And? I don't have to agree with those many posters or find their positions reasonable.

True. And here we are. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
If a player cheats in regards to tracking their ammo and/or rations, that is far less severe in my opinion than cheating on their dice rolls (hiding their rolls, using weighted dice, etc).

Sure, it's definitely less severe. It still take away from the genuineness of the game, though. In a game where ammunition and/or ration tracking is required, cheating on it alters outcomes. I've been in games where we ran low or out of rations and we had to worry about where we were going to find food. It affected game play. I've run out of arrows and had to go melee and been unable to shoot at creatures across ravines and the like. It affected game play. Running out of important resources adds to the drama of the game and gives it a kind of depth that unlimited ammo and food doesn't have. A player who cheats is robbing the other players of those experiences.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I find I categorize "integrity of the game" with the "cheapens" comment. The integrity of Cheetos and Mt. Dew and "I attack the darkness!"? The game's integrity, in and of itself, is of no import. It is not a goal or priority. The game's integrity is only relevant insofar as it supports the player's enjoyment, and no farther. The game serves the people, not the other way around.

And that's just it. Cheating saps enjoyment from the game. If I'm playing a game and I know that there is a cheater in the group, I can no longer trust any encounter that he is a part of unless I can see all of his rolls and what he's doing on his sheet, and that level of watching players isn't fun, either. I can't enjoy the success we had at persuading the king to do something we want, because I don't know if his "20" was real or not. I can't enjoy defeating an encounter, especially close ones, because we might have won only due to the player cheating.

I'm not going to play in a game with, or DM for cheaters. It ruins my fun and take away from the fun of my other players. If one of my friends was a cheater, I wouldn't kick him out of the group. I'd simply start playing things like Catan or Ascension, which are harder to cheat at and are still lots of fun, or just hang out. If you don't care about cheating, more power to you. I don't personally know anyone who is okay with it. I also question why even bother to have rules if you don't care if they are broken or not by cheaters.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Any notions of the game's "integrity" strikes me as farcical levels of over seriousness here. If these are the sort of things that makes a person stop DMing, then maybe they should not be in the business of DMing to begin with. Out of all the issues to kick someone out of a tabletop gaming group, this one seems kinda miniscule, especially if they are your "friends." If I ever did that, I would think that my priorities in life were wildly out of whack. There are ways to deal with a serial cheater. If they cheat with dice, then you put them in situations where dice can't save them. Give them other dice to use. You don't call for a roll. You provide greater incentives for those who aren't cheating.
All of which are things I-as-DM shouldn't have to do, and wouldn't be in the position of having to bother with were I just to punt the cheater and have done with it.

So for me this is less about the "cheating," and more about when the person's playing becomes unreasonably disruptive for the group. I don't know where that arbitrary line in the sand is either, because this line tends to vary person to person and group to group. But if I am given the choice between a periodic cheater who gels well with the group and brings a lot of fun to the table and a Grade-A :):):):):):):) who never cheats and admonishes others when they cheat, then I will pick the serial cheater every time.
Where I will pick the other, as asshat or not at least I know it's someone I can trust.

Yes it's just a game, but if I can't even trust you to roll dice without cheating what else can't I trust you on in other aspects of life?

Umbran said:
I find I categorize "integrity of the game" with the "cheapens" comment. The integrity of Cheetos and Mt. Dew and "I attack the darkness!"? The game's integrity, in and of itself, is of no import. It is not a goal or priority. The game's integrity is only relevant insofar as it supports the player's enjoyment, and no farther. The game serves the people, not the other way around.
Where I see the game and its integrity as being - to a point - bigger than any single person who might be involved in it, just like a sports team is bigger than any of its players.

Without integrity - unless you're playing completely rules-less, which though uncommon I suppose is possible - what's the point of having rules?

Ralif Redhammer said:
As for cheating at stats, I think AL’s mandate of the Standard Array or Point-Buy is glorious ... Because otherwise, yeah, there will always be that one person that has an 18 in their prime ability and nothing lower than a 12.
Can't happen* if all rolls are done at the table where others can see 'em.

* - unless someone in fact legitimately does roll really well. Random chance can be funny that way.

Lanefan
 

Les Moore

Explorer
Seems to me, if you're going to cheat, you cost yourself a lot of time and money in the process. You could find a
five year old kid, and beat him at checkers. You'd get the same satisfaction from "winning", and save yourself the
cost of dice, books, etc, and the time it took to set up an elaborate game with multiple players which you rendered
meaningless.
 

Aldarc

Legend
The word farcical was yours. I merely played up to it. :p
But "anything goes" was your own unique contribution.

Where I will pick the other, as asshat or not at least I know it's someone I can trust.
But said asshat is disruptive to the group and does not gel with the rest of your group which was the point.

Yes it's just a game, but if I can't even trust you to roll dice without cheating what else can't I trust you on in other aspects of life?
I don't know. Why don't you list them all out? And perhaps then consider whether or not you have trust issues.

Where I see the game and its integrity as being - to a point - bigger than any single person who might be involved in it, just like a sports team is bigger than any of its players.
Which is why I won't sink a person for cheating. The game survives and continues swimmingly.

Without integrity - unless you're playing completely rules-less, which though uncommon I suppose is possible - what's the point of having rules?
It's "rulings not rules," no? :confused:
 



Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
But said asshat is disruptive to the group and does not gel with the rest of your group which was the point.

Cheating also disrupts the group. It just does so in an underhanded way. At least the asshat is out in the open about it.

I don't know. Why don't you list them all out? And perhaps then consider whether or not you have trust issues.

Trust issues are when someone mistrusts without reason. Cheating is a very good reason not to trust someone, so mistrusting a cheater doesn't involve trust issues.

Which is why I won't sink a person for cheating. The game survives and continues swimmingly.

I wouldn't call lessening the enjoyment of everyone involved other than the cheater to be "continuing swimmingly."

It's "rulings not rules," no? :confused:

Which is one reason why the DM cannot be cheating when he fudges things.
 

Which is one reason why the DM cannot be cheating when he fudges things.

I can certainly think of situations where fudging by the DM can be considered cheating as well. I've been in a campaign where it seemed the DM went to great lengths to 'win'. He would throw impossible skill checks at our players, and often outright declare our attempts a failure, even when we rolled really high. Then he would throw in an npc that would not have this problem, to steal our thunder.

When a DM asks for a check, I would have to assume the DM has a difficulty for the check in mind that is some what reasonable. If the DC is impossible, he shouldn't be asking for a check. And if I make the check, he should not alter the DC afterwards so that I still fail it. That in my opinion, would be cheating.

This is why I tend to be very open about the difficulty of checks to my players. I'll state up front to my players that they must succeed at a 20 for example, "or else this will happen", and then give them the option to reconsider their action. This means that when they beat the DC that I stated up front, I'm obligated to give them their success. It also means that the players are better informed about how I will rule the result of their roll, before they take their action. It makes it more fair for everybody.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top