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

Aldarc

Legend
Cheating also disrupts the group. It just does so in an underhanded way. At least the asshat is out in the open about it.
Cheating can disrupt the group, but it is not that simple of a causal relation. Again, the language you adopt here is far too absolute for my liking or experience.

I wouldn't call lessening the enjoyment of everyone involved other than the cheater to be "continuing swimmingly."
And that assumption is a fairly major crux of the disagreement. Whether that is true for your table or not, that is not inherently true nor should we regard it as true.

Which is one reason why the DM cannot be cheating when he fudges things.
Ah yes, that whole "it is impossible for the GM to cheat" debate.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.

Me, too. The DM is not cheating, though. He can't. Instead, he's being an asshat and bad DM. You respond to that by letting him know that you have better things to do and going elsewhere. The fact that the DM is given the authority to add, subtract or alter rules as he sees fit means that he literally cannot cheat. There's no rule for him to break. Rulings over rules and all that.

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.

It's messed up, but it's not cheating since he isn't breaking a rule.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Cheating can disrupt the group, but it is not that simple of a causal relation. Again, the language you adopt here is far too absolute for my liking or experience.

And that assumption is a fairly major crux of the disagreement. Whether that is true for your table or not, that is not inherently true nor should we regard it as true.

I'll take your word for it that you can [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] are just fine with cheaters cheating in your games. I know I'm not. I also know that none of my players are. And further, nobody that I've ever talked to in person has said that they were fine with it. I'm reasonably sure that you guys are in a small minority of people.
 

It's messed up, but it's not cheating since he isn't breaking a rule.

This seems odd to me. The game rules are pretty well established. The DM can of course decide when he uses the rules and when not. But once a DM commits to an established rule (such as a skill check), and ask for a roll from a player, he should not be ignoring the result of the roll that he asked for. That is cheating.

Or imagine a scenario where a player makes an attack, and the DM simply decides that the monster's armor class is suddenly higher, just so that the attack misses. Once a DM starts to arbitrarily ignore the rules without the consent of his players, I would definitely consider that cheating.
 

Sadras

Legend
Say what? :confused::confused::confused:

Your position about cheating is clear as is mine. You seem to be more tolerant than most and that is fine for your table. To me that gives off the impression that anything goes at your table (again within the realms of cheating) just because there are worse things a player can do and because the game still continues swimmingly by your account.

I'm not tolerant of it at all, however as I have mentioned already I do not think it would be a long term issue after it was found out and the person cheating was called on it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
This seems odd to me. The game rules are pretty well established. The DM can of course decide when he uses the rules and when not. But once a DM commits to an established rule (such as a skill check), and ask for a roll from a player, he should not be ignoring the result of the roll that he asked for. That is cheating.

Or imagine a scenario where a player makes an attack, and the DM simply decides that the monster's armor class is suddenly higher, just so that the attack misses. Once a DM starts to arbitrarily ignore the rules without the consent of his players, I would definitely consider that cheating.

Except that there are no requirements that the DM be consistent or that he consult the players before changing/ignoring a rule. Those are good qualities in a DM, but there are no requirements that he be that way.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Your position about cheating is clear as is mine. You seem to be more tolerant than most and that is fine for your table. To me that gives off the impression that anything goes at your tablejust because there are worse things a player can do and because the game still continues swimmingly by your account.

I'm not tolerant of it at all, however as I have mentioned already I do not think it would be a long term issue after it was found out and the person cheating was called on it.
As the saying goes, "When you assume..."

I'll take your word for it that you can [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] are just fine with cheaters cheating in your games. I know I'm not. I also know that none of my players are. And further, nobody that I've ever talked to in person has said that they were fine with it. I'm reasonably sure that you guys are in a small minority of people.
That's fine. I have a negative anthropology which engenders a more a pragmatist approach in this matter. Cheating happens. The game goes on.

Except that there are no requirements that the DM be consistent or that he consult the players before changing/ignoring a rule. Those are good qualities in a DM, but there are no requirements that he be that way.
So you are making a legal appeal to the rules as written to suggest that "rulings not rules" means that the GM is inherently incapable of cheating? :confused:
 

Sadras

Legend
The DM is not cheating, though. He can't. Instead, he's being an asshat and bad DM. You respond to that by letting him know that you have better things to do and going elsewhere. The fact that the DM is given the authority to add, subtract or alter rules as he sees fit means that he literally cannot cheat. There's no rule for him to break. Rulings over rules and all that.

It's messed up, but it's not cheating since he isn't breaking a rule.

This would make an interesting poll. Officially can a DM cheat?

The online definition of cheating:
1. act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.
2. avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill.

In (1), one might ask what advantage might the DM gain. Well DM's that act as the one described by @Imaculata tend to enjoy a DM-vs-player style and so there is room to say that cheating or fudging (whichever you prefer) provides an advantage to the DM in that roleplaying style.

In (2), many DM's technically cheat or fudge to avoid undesirable outcomes for the table (whether it be to spare a PC or prolong an epic combat...etc).

However having said all that, the DM has the power to change/amend any rule of the game AND at any time. So can he really cheat?

I'm not really asking you Max, just musing and upping my post count. :)

EDIT: Wait, I got it,

CAN GOD CHEAT?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I'm reasonably sure that you guys are in a small minority of people.

So, how does that fly in the face of the surveying behind the OP?

Did they lie about their survey results? Did they somehow just happen to choose a population in which lots of cheating happens, but that population is not representative? Have times changed, so that the results are no longer relevant? Are people hypocrites, and everyone cheats, but nobody is okay with anyone *else* cheating? Or, do you simply choose to believe what you believe, despite contrary evidence? Something else?

Any statement of what "the real majority" thinks has to deal with the survey results.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Aldarc

Legend
I have a message for all y'all kicking out these irredemable cheaters from your table:
“Give me your unwant'd, your poor,
Your muddled cheaters yearning to play free,
The wretched refuse of your gaming store.
Send these, the groupless, table-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the dungeon door!”
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top