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

Though in fairness the players are probably going to expect the DM to create encounters, create adventures, and award experience - but they're not necessarily going to expect her to fudge the dice and may or may not react rather negatively if they find out such has been done.

That's my main point - if the players wouldn't be ok if they knew about it, then don't do it. (I'm not talking about every instance. I'm talking about being open about the practice in general.) If anyone at the table is doing anything that they feel they need to hide from everyone else, then they are likely violating the trust of the group and should stop.

Conversely, if the players are ok with it (not would be but actually are), then it's a perfectly acceptable part of the game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
That's not the only reason we have a DM. :erm:

No, it's not.

But if you can buy an adventure path and state that the dice have to be followed all the time without fudging, I can tell you with certainty that the players don't need one to actually play.

You may say.. well then they'd know all the secrets of the module..

And I'd reply.. that's what the DM is for, keeping secrets until necessary. Sometimes those secrets remain secrets, and that brings us back to your question about keeping secrets.

Full circle.
KB
 

Aldarc

Legend
That's my main point - if the players wouldn't be ok if they knew about it, then don't do it. (I'm not talking about every instance. I'm talking about being open about the practice in general.) If anyone at the table is doing anything that they feel they need to hide from everyone else, then they are likely violating the trust of the group and should stop.

Conversely, if the players are ok with it (not would be but actually are), then it's a perfectly acceptable part of the game.
And all of this constitutes a big part of my philosophy in regards to player fudging. Just include the GM in this tacit consent too.
 

No, it's not.

But if you can buy an adventure path and state that the dice have to be followed all the time without fudging, I can tell you with certainty that the players don't need one to actually play.

You may say.. well then they'd know all the secrets of the module..

And I'd reply.. that's what the DM is for, keeping secrets until necessary. Sometimes those secrets remain secrets, and that brings us back to your question about keeping secrets.


Isn't the DM also there to be an independent arbiter and narrator?* Even if the players are playing through a module, don't they also need a DM to describe stuff, play the role of various characters, and make the experience enjoyable?

(* Narrator in the sense that he describes what the players see, and what the results of their actions are.)

Otherwise you're not playing D&D in my opinion, you're playing Hero Quest (which also has a game master come to think of it).

Full circle.
KB

Okay. :erm:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
Isn't the DM also there to be an independent arbiter and narrator?* Even if the players are playing through a module, don't they also need a DM to describe stuff, play the role of various characters, and make the experience enjoyable?

(* Narrator in the sense that he describes what the players see, and what the results of their actions are.)

Otherwise you're not playing D&D in my opinion, you're playing Hero Quest (which also has a game master come to think of it).

Not trying to be a pain in the butt here, sorry.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Talking of character generation, how do people feel about players who like to "work the rules", looking for synergies or even holes in allowable options in order to maximise benefits, min/max stats etc to create a heavily optimised builds, as opposed to coming up with a character concept and then using the creation rules to flesh that out?

Is this a form of cheating? Are players trying to gain an advantage? Are they stretching the spirit of the game?
In order: technically no, yes, and yes.

In my mind I don't like the idea of it, which is probably because the games my group play are much more biased towards a good story and adventure and thankfully no one does this. Online, I have seen many discussions around "optimal builds for.....". I guess in a more competitive style of game it is fine?
It's an issue in many systems, but the more interlocking mechanics the system has the more opportunity there is to break something, particularly if said mechanics weren't playtested into the gorund first. Late-era 2e is the poster child for this.

The answer, though unpopular these days, is to try to remove game mechanics (feats and skills, front and center please!) rather than add them; and to where possible divorce separate mechanics from each other such that if one becomes a problem fixing it doesn't break other things elsewhere.

Lanefan
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
Talking of character generation, how do people feel about players who like to "work the rules", looking for synergies or even holes in allowable options in order to maximise benefits, min/max stats etc to create a heavily optimised builds, as opposed to coming up with a character concept and then using the creation rules to flesh that out?

Is this a form of cheating? Are players trying to gain an advantage? Are they stretching the spirit of the game?

In my mind I don't like the idea of it, which is probably because the games my group play are much more biased towards a good story and adventure and thankfully no one does this. Online, I have seen many discussions around "optimal builds for.....". I guess in a more competitive style of game it is fine?

Character concepts are neat, but fundamentally the game boils down to the following issue:
Will my character concept be capable of doing the thing I want them to do? Yes/No.
Lets say for example, you want to be a detective. There are specific Skills you need to have in order to accomplish that.
Lets say you want to turn into animals. There are specific class features you need in order to accomplish that.
Lets say you want to cast spells. There are specific classes you need in order to accomplish that.

Most people I would wager want their characters to be good(TM) at what they want their characters to do. You can simulate ineptitude at tasks by choosing to take lower results. It is within the control of the players to perform as poorly as they want. It is not within the control of the players to perform as well as they want.

So logically if you want to be a detective, you take the classes that grant you the skills that make best use of detective-like scores. There's a reason that detective-like characters in fiction are not say, barbarians. There's a reason why Conan is a warrior and why Batman is a ninja.

Maybe YOU the DM, make allowances that are outside the purview of the rules, but within the domain of the DM to say "Yeah, this Barbarian detective idea sounds cool, even though you're no good at detective stuff, I'm gonna help you out for the sake of story."

It annoys be that people are quick to position "story" against mathematically-sound character building. "Story" is about how you play, not what you play. I don't need D&D to have a good story, heck I don't even really need rules for that. But if we're going to have randomized elements and rules and "game" elements to this story, I want to make best use* of those rules.

Outside of a specific character concept that the creator knows will be inept, there's no reason not to make best use of the rules.

*best use here is not to mean perfect use. There are lots of ways to build very powerful and very successful characters. Perfect use would be say, using only the top build. As opposed to say, the #2 or #3 build or even the #5 build.
 

Aldarc

Legend
The answer, though unpopular these days, is to try to remove game mechanics (feats and skills, front and center please!) rather than add them; and to where possible divorce separate mechanics from each other such that if one becomes a problem fixing it doesn't break other things elsewhere.

Lanefan
Though this is not necessarily your intention here, this does get wheels turning in my head. Skills, particularly social and knowledge skills, are sometimes used as a way to reflect abilities that characters may have that players don't and as a way to overcome being required to roleplay (i.e., mind-reading) against the GM. But is there a way to provide such mechanical safeguards for player characters without needing a skill system? I can already brainstorm several systems where this may apply, but I would need to further hone the nature of my question first.
 

Jhaelen

First Post
Talking of character generation, how do people feel about players who like to "work the rules", looking for synergies or even holes in allowable options in order to maximise benefits, min/max stats etc to create a heavily optimised builds, as opposed to coming up with a character concept and then using the creation rules to flesh that out?

Is this a form of cheating? Are players trying to gain an advantage? Are they stretching the spirit of the game?
I'm not sure I'd call that 'cheating' (just like several of the examples given in the article don't constitute 'cheating' for me), but it's definitely something I don't like. In my games RAI always beats RAW, and since I'm the GM, I'm the final arbiter about what's intended and what isn't.

I always discourage my players to visit or read the so-called "Character Optimization Boards". As I like to point out, it's not possible for a player to gain any advantage by abusing unintended cheese. The reason is that a player can never 'win' against a GM: If players start to overdo it and optimize their characters too much, all they'll achieve is that I'll be designing correspondingly harder encounters for them.
Players are better served spending their creative energy to create a fun character with a believable and interesting background and personality traits.
 

Gibili

Explorer
It annoys be that people are quick to position "story" against mathematically-sound character building. "Story" is about how you play, not what you play. I don't need D&D to have a good story, heck I don't even really need rules for that. But if we're going to have randomized elements and rules and "game" elements to this story, I want to make best use* of those rules.
Yes, my question wasn't about creating a viable character, which I would expect every player to do, its about whether it is pushing the boundaries too much to create a character that is super-optimsed to the rules. I totally agree that if you want to play a detective, as per your example, than there are certain skills you'll need to take, and certain attributes you will want to boost at the expense of others. My question was whether a player works the rules, i.e. studies how to combine this factor with that factor and how X stacks with Y, and how if I multi-class one level as a passivist doctor then it makes my blood thirsty space fighter pilot better because of this rule or lack of rule etc.

Outside of a specific character concept that the creator knows will be inept, there's no reason not to make best use of the rules.
*best use here is not to mean perfect use. There are lots of ways to build very powerful and very successful characters. Perfect use would be say, using only the top build. As opposed to say, the #2 or #3 build or even the #5 build.
Yes, totally with you, that is exactly it in my mind. Viable build versus perfect build as you describe above. By all means come up with a combination of stats that allows you to create a viable character of the sort you want but don't play the system as it were in terms of builds. The caveat on that of course is unless that's the way the group want it, in which case go for it!
Where we've played systems like D&D 2e where you roll dice to get a pool of values to create your stats from, I've certainly let players re-roll because the dice values combined with the rules means that the player can't create the character they want, or if the pool of values is so poor that actually it wouldn't be much fun, especially compared to other players' characters. Flaws can be great fun to play with in a character but a totally hamstrung character is not.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top