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

pemerton

Legend
I don't want the party or a party member to be killed off by a war party of kobolds on their first or subsequent adventures, just starting out.
From Gygax's DMG, p 9:

T]he rules call for wandering monsters, but these can be not only irritating - if not deadly - but the appearance of such can actually spoil a game by interfering with an orderly expedition. You have set up an area full of clever tricks and traps, populated it with well-thought-out creature complexes, given clues about it to pique players’ interest,
and the group has worked hard to supply themselves with everything by way of information and equipment they will need to face and overcome the imagined perils. They are gathered together and eager to spend an enjoyable evening playing their favorite game, with the expectation of going to a new, strange area and doing their best to triumph. They are willing to accept the hazards of the dice, be it loss of items, wounding, insanity, disease, death, as long as the process is exciting. But lo!, everytime you throw the ”monster die” a wandering nasty is indicated, and the party’s strength is spent trying to fight their way into the area. Spells expended, battered and wounded, the characters trek back to their base. Expectations have been dashed, and probably interest too, by random chance. Rather than spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time, omit the wandering monsters indicated by the die. No, don’t allow the party to kill them easily or escape unnaturally, for that goes contrary to the major precepts of the game.​

I'm not saying that Gygax's advice is the only way to do it, but I think it's noteworthy that he draws such a strong contrast between the GM making decisions that regulate the introduction of new challenges into play (eg by ignoring wandering monster dice) and the GM fudging action resolution results.

Manbearcat said:
There are lots and lots of games that put ”don’t cheat” explicitly in their game text. They go on to explain why it’s a problem and why it’s wholly unnecessary for that/those games (because they work without need for application of GM Force).
Hm. I wonder if anyone can find me a quote reference of that from a game.
Suggesting that certain GMing choices would go contrary to the major precepts of the game, and for that reason should not be done, comes well within cooee of what [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] described.

Here's another example, from Burning Wheel (Gold edition, p 30), which is directly relevant to the sort of example [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] gave:

[W]hat happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal—he achieved his intent and completed the task.

This is important enough to say again: Characters who are successful complete actions in the manner described by the player. A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test.​

Slightly less portentously, the Marvel Heroic RP rulebook (p OM8) says:

In some games, the person who runs the game rolls the dice in secret - but there are no secrets in the Bullpen. Roll those bones in full view, Watchers!​
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sadras

Legend
But the 2nd definition specifically states avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill.
i.e. To all who witnessed the accident, many were of the opinion that James cheated death
I don't see how it could be used in your example for someone to avoid eating a cheese sandwich, although I don't know why anyone would want to do that.

EDIT: Perhaps the synonyms provided will be clear by what I mean by the other use of the word cheat.
synonyms:avoid, escape, evade, elude, steer clear of, dodge, duck, miss, sidestep, bypass, skirt, shun, eschew

"Tilly saw the waiter approaching, ready to make yet another insistent offer of a cheese sandwich. But once again she cheated culinary fate - a stray olive on the rug sent the waiter stumbling and the sandwiches tumbling."

Yes correct.
@Maxperson I see where the complication lies - the definitions I used for cheating refer to the use of the verb cheat. You were then using examples of avoidance (verb) to imply someone is a cheater (noun), which of course sounded ridiculous, it was never meant to be used that way. Apologies for the confusion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Sadras

Legend
I was more angling for a Laugh click!

(And at least on my part was never confused by your post about the word "cheat".)

To be honest I thought you were and almost did click laugh, but was trying to avoid another mix-up in this thread - so I second guessed myself.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
But the 2nd definition specifically states avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill.
i.e. To all who witnessed the accident, many were of the opinion that James cheated death
I don't see how it could be used in your example for someone to avoid eating a cheese sandwich, although I don't know why anyone would want to do that.

EDIT: Perhaps the synonyms provided will be clear by what I mean by the other use of the word cheat.
synonyms:avoid, escape, evade, elude, steer clear of, dodge, duck, miss, sidestep, bypass, skirt, shun, eschew

Because it says "or skill." A deliberate avoidance is using skill, so avoiding a cheese sandwich, intercepting a football, and working hard are all uses of skill to avoid something. Granted it doesn't take a lot of skill to avoid the sandwich.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
"Tilly saw the waiter approaching, ready to make yet another insistent offer of a cheese sandwich. But once again she cheated culinary fate - a stray olive on the rug sent the waiter stumbling and the sandwiches tumbling."

You joke, but there is skill involved with avoiding a food. I'm very allergic to chicken. I've learned over the years to always ask what's in hot dogs, because some have chicken in them. The same with meatballs. I always check fast food labels, because companies like to use chicken stock for flavor. The same at restaurants. They sometimes use chicken stock for things as simple as cooking vegetables. Chinese food is a big culprit with the use of chicken stock. When eating at a taco place that chops of chicken and beef I always pay attention and look for the color of chicken as I eat, because sometimes pieces of chicken get mixed in with the beef. And so on.
 

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
Yes, of course GMs can cheat.

There are lots and lots of games that put ”don’t cheat” explicitly in their game text. They go on to explain why it’s a problem and why it’s wholly unnecessary for that/those games (because they work without need for application of GM Force).

Other games that skirt the issue or are ambivalent it milquetoast leave it up to social contract (though in their text they may have some commentary on the implications of cheating). And divining that is pretty simple:

If players expect to have autonomy over their decision-points and expect the formula of their action declarations + application of resolution mechanics = unmediated outcomes (therefore play/story trajectory)...and their decision-points suddenly aren’t autonomous (because of the covert application of one kind of Force or another like a classic post-hoc “block”) and the outcomes of their declared actions are covertly GM-mediated (eg applying Force in the way of shifting target numbers)...

That is cheating as a GM.

The anchor of your argument is "If players expect".

If there are no rules to back up that expectation or a social contract through session 0 conversation that gives them reason to expect that; and they are simply assuming - then the GM isn't cheating. It's a matter of bad communication.

Of course, if there are rules or a social contract in place, you're correct. However, in most cases were there such things the players that don't want to play that way wouldn't be there and the chance of such cheating is minimized.

2c
KB
 


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I don't want the party or a party member to be killed off by a war party of kobolds on their first or subsequent adventures, just starting out.
While we as DMs might not necessarily want PCs to die early, the fact of the matter is it's going to happen, particularly in an older-edition (3e and earlier) game. It's a hazard known by all.

Killing an entire party, even at very low levels, is much less common; there's always a few survivors. Parties as a whole are light-years more resilient than the individual characters which comprise them.

After, 10th level, no pulling punches. That's just me. Not sure about other DM's.
I stop pulling punches right around the point where session 0 becomes session 1. :)

Lanefan
 

prosfilaes

Adventurer
I have never heard of computer generation used, and that would have been tough to do in, say, 1979.

Actually, an Apple II or TRS 80 could probably handle a complete AD&D PHB 1st level character generator sans equipment and spells, and would have no problem rolling dice as many times as needed.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top