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?

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

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
The same idea is found later on in the book (p 110):

[I]t is your right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players. You might wish to do this to keep them from knowing some specific fact. You also might wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining. You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"

. . .

Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well. When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may!​

This is not an advocacy of carte-blanche GM changing of outcomes. It's about the GM managing content introduction (wanderers, new dungeon areas discovered), and about combat being fairly adjudicated.

He may not be advocating carte-blanche DM changing of outcomes, but he gives the DM the ability to change outcomes carte-blanche. I bolded it. He says very clearly that you can control the dice at "any time." Not some of the time. Not in these specific instances. But any time. He then goes on to say you should let bad luck with dice pass, not that you have to.

Gygax is all about giving the DM the power to do anything he wants and encouraging the DM to make D&D his game with his stamp on things, and then giving advice on how he thinks something should be done.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
He then goes on to say you should let bad luck with dice pass, not that you have to.

Gygax is all about giving the DM the power to do anything he wants
He also says "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"; that adjudication of consequences in combat should "take into account what the monster has done", and that fudging combat rolls would be "contrary to the major precepts of the game". None of those remarks is about "giving the DM the power to do anything he wants". They evince a very clear conception of what the game is about (skilled play) and what the GM's function is (honouring skilled play, and appropriately managing content introduction, especially when the latter threatens not to honour skilled play).
 

Arilyn

Hero
RPGs, including DnD, have vastly changed since Gygax. And even back in the 70s, there was a lot of arguing over this issue, so not sure that Gygax quotes really strengthen anyone's position. There is also the problem that Gygax's own views shifted over time, and were often contradictory.
 

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
He also says "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"; that adjudication of consequences in combat should "take into account what the monster has done", and that fudging combat rolls would be "contrary to the major precepts of the game". None of those remarks is about "giving the DM the power to do anything he wants". They evince a very clear conception of what the game is about (skilled play) and what the GM's function is (honouring skilled play, and appropriately managing content introduction, especially when the latter threatens not to honour skilled play).

There are times I wish Gary were still here to end debate about what he actually meant then and what he feels now. There are too many threads where we all go "hey Gary said", and those of us who were lucky enough to actually have chatted with him a few times might have some insight that will never be accepted by those of us that didn't.

However, here's a thought, and it's my thought not Gary's. There has been no game in the history of D&D where the dice have been followed absolutely AND skilled play alone has resulted in a high level character. While I'm willing to believe you if you say, "sure there has" there's not going to be enough evidence to prove it without doubt. Humans are not modrons, so I feel highly confident in my position.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
I'm not sure referencing "Rule 0" is very game specific. After all, Rule 0, even in just D&D, has changed pretty radically over the years. 1e told you that Rule 0 was a means to adjudicate actions that the rules didn't cover. It did not, at all, say that the DM has the power to over rule any rule or outcome. That interpretation is something that folks have generally added in in their own head without actually referencing what is stated in the books.

Heck, Rule 0 doesn't appear at ALL in 3e.
Sure it does, it had just become 'of course, the DM can change the rules...' Though I understand your confusion, since the community was obsessed with RAW.
 

Hussar

Legend
I always interpreted "the DM change change the rules" as clear permission from the game makers to add or subtract or alter rules before play. IOW, kit bashing, altering classes, doing this or that or the other thing is perfectly fine.

But using that as evidence that che... err... fudging is fine well, actually, now that I think about it, yeah, I'll buy that. All it does is redefine cheating as fudging so that DM's can have the warm fuzzies about cheating in the game and pretend that they aren't actually cheating.

Same sort of thing applies to character generation where DM's and players che... err... fudge all the time unless you use point buy values.

It's something I see as very immature play to be honest. I'm there to actually play the game. Which means that I place a much higher value on the rules than on anyone else's notion of "rule of cool". Either as a DM or a player. I don't want your "rule of cool". I really, really don't. I don't think it results in more fun at the table. I think that it takes away far too much from the game when the players cannot ever be sure if their victories were earned or a gimme.

Like I said, if fudging was perfectly fine, then why is it done in secret at most tables? You only hide it because everyone at the table hates it.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
It's something I see as very immature play to be honest. I'm there to actually play the game. Which means that I place a much higher value on the rules than on anyone else's notion of "rule of cool". Either as a DM or a player. I don't want your "rule of cool". I really, really don't
It really depends on how un-cool the rules of the game are to begin with...

Like I said, if fudging was perfectly fine, then why is it done in secret at most tables? You only hide it because everyone at the table hates it.
Why don't magicians let you see the stage from every angle? Because being 'fooled' in certain ways is a kind of entertainment.
 

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
It's something I see as very immature play to be honest. I'm there to actually play the game. Which means that I place a much higher value on the rules than on anyone else's notion of "rule of cool". Either as a DM or a player. I don't want your "rule of cool".

Hi Hussar -

I respect that and your preferences. Know that were you at my table this would come up during pre-campaign work before session zero. I've no problem running games exactly that way, but when there's five or so players at a table, everyone would need to agree with it before I signed off on it. If you were at a table with someone that was 180 degrees in the other direction, there'd need to be some compromise or it's likely that I lose a player to keep a player.

Putting the DM in that kind of position isn't good for the long term health of the game either. :)

Be well
KB
 

Hussar

Legend
It really depends on how un-cool the rules of the game are to begin with...

Why don't magicians let you see the stage from every angle? Because being 'fooled' in certain ways is a kind of entertainment.

Well, that's fair. Then again, why am I playing a game I don't like? Hopefully the rules of the game I'm playing are cool to me, otherwise, why bother?

As far as magicians go, I'm not expected to do anything other than be an audience. I'm not expected to actually perform and the performance doesn't revolve around me. At an RPG session, the entire group is expected to contribute to the "performance". Which becomes problematic when at least some of the group isn't playing above board.
[MENTION=92239]Kobold Boots[/MENTION] - oh, sure, it's totally a personal taste thing.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Well, that's fair. Then again, why am I playing a game I don't like?
Because you can't find one other games willing to play the one you do like, but can find 12 others willing to play the one you don't?

As far as magicians go, I'm not expected to do anything other than be an audience. I'm not expected to actually perform and the performance doesn't revolve around me. At an RPG session, the entire group is expected to contribute to the "performance". Which becomes problematic when at least some of the group isn't playing above board.
.
Magicians get volunteers from the audience all the time, and don't necessarily let them in on the trick.

And, really, while players are performers in one s3nse that are also at least as much ausience.

And it's only one, whose role allows it, who gets the smoke & mirrors.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top