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

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
On cheating:
- It is functionally impossible for the DM to cheat in a game with a Rule 0.
- On rules that allow you to cheat. This is silly without context as if there is a rule that allows you to cheat, then there is no basis for cheating in the first place. No one can cheat in this circumstance without defining the context of the rule. I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] mentioned something like this already but I can see where [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is coming from provided there's context.

Regardless, using the term "cheat" in any context that would "allow someone to cheat" is a bastardization of the English language. Technically, every time you get a feat, you get to do something that someone else can't so there's a difference between "cheating" and "doing something special". Doing something special, should never be called "cheating"

- On skilled play -

I've grown differing opinions on this over the years. When I was younger I considered Gary's words as he was advocating for a style of play where people thought through their actions, build outs and equipment ahead of time and did smart things during game play that exhibited that kind of engagement. This was considered "good" play and as such XP was given.

At some point "skilled play" turned into optimization which isn't the same thing as simply being smart about what you're doing. Optimized characters could still be played in such a way that skilled play under the original definition wasn't happening, but folks would still take down enemies and earn XP. This was also considered "good play".

Oversimplifying some more, at some point "skilled play" as a definition went away in favor of "immersive" or "story first" play. In this case XP were given for hours spent playing or hitting milestones instead of killing things. This is a function of political correctness as much as it is changing tastes. In a world where participation trophies exist (and I'm not saying that's a bad thing) the concept of "skilled play" vs. "play" is less important.

The game Gary played and advocated for isn't the modern game; unless you and your table want it to be. Ultimately it doesn't matter but I don't see much reason in explaining differences or invoking what was, without understanding that it's not coming back into style for the mainstream. As popular as the game was in the 80s, that's a formula to kill the game in the 2020s.

Enjoy what you will such that you harm none with vitriol. Forums ahoy.

KB
 

log in or register to remove this ad

prosfilaes

Adventurer
In this case XP were given for hours spent playing or hitting milestones instead of killing things. This is a function of political correctness as much as it is changing tastes. In a world where participation trophies exist (and I'm not saying that's a bad thing) the concept of "skilled play" vs. "play" is less important.

I don't see any way to define political correctness in this context such that it's not just a subset of changing tastes. As a child of the 1980s, I got participation trophies; that means even if Gygax didn't get participation trophies, it was his generation (or a previous one) that invented them or started handing them out in great numbers.
 

Hussar

Legend
I'm saying that altering die rolls is part of the rules for 4 of the last 5 editions. In 1e and 2e, there is some advice on when to do it, but there is the power of the DM to ignore such advice. Only in 1e and 2e was the DM going against the advice(not a rule) of Gygax in altering die rolls. In 3e and 5e, the rules specifically allow the DM to alter the die rolls, and in 3e they let you know that doing so isn't cheating at all.

4e I'm not sure about, as I didn't play it very much and didn't DM it at all.

I totally agree with you here.

So does the article.

They institutionalized cheating. And then rebranded it as "fudging". Doesn't mean that it isn't cheating. It just means that you have bought into the branding.

I cheat from time to time. Or, to use your vernacular, I fudge from time to time. Rarely, but, it is done.

I just don't try to pretend that it's something that it isn't.
 

pemerton

Legend
0. CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER
Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules. You might also want to know what character types the other players are playing so that you can create a character that fits in well with the group.
Rule Zero was "check with your dungeon master."
It is functionally impossible for the DM to cheat in a game with a Rule 0.
Aldarc quoted "rule zero" from the 3E books. I don't see how that rule makes it impossible for the GM to cheat.

at some point "skilled play" as a definition went away in favor of "immersive" or "story first" play. In this case XP were given for hours spent playing or hitting milestones instead of killing things. This is a function of political correctness as much as it is changing tastes.
This is total nonsense. Pacing character progression to generate a form of story arc - which is how, say, 4e works - is not a political decision of any form. It's an aesthetic decision.

Not everyone plays RPGs as wargames. This is probably the only point on which [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] and I have something in common in our RPGing.

Umm, we played AD&D without XP, at least without using it in the way it was originally designed, with XP for treasure and killing monsters. We leveled up at what we felt were appropriate times. Didn't seem to break the game. I guess you'd say we did reward XP for playing well, but used an entirely different system than what was provided.
You seem to have misunderstood my point. You aren't using Gygax's AD&D rules with players who don't care about XP, thereby breaking the game. Because you've got players who don't care about XP, you've changed the rules of the game from those that Gygax published.

That was exactly what I said in my post. (Contrast 2nd ed AD&D, which doesn't change the rules - though it does make XP for gp optional - and hence gets tangled up in knots.)

I would add: a D&D game that does not use XP has moved a long way from the sort of game Gygax talked about in his AD&D books, even if it still uses the same chart for bend bars/lift gates rolls.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
And thankfully when you constantly shift those goal posts, those meanings can change to help you evade being a "cheater," right? ;)

I've not once shifted any goalposts in this discussion.

Could you please stop with the evasive double-speak?

There is no double speak. The reality IS that the only thing the DM is doing is altering a die roll via the rules. It's no different than a player engaging a feat to do so.

Regardless of whether it is part of the rules or not, you are being dishonest about the die results to the players. If you were not being dishonest about the dice result, then you would not need a GM screen to alter the die results. Or do you follow the idea that it is only cheating when you get caught?

It's not cheating no matter what. It fails to meet any definition of cheating AND the rules allow the die rolls to be changed.

You have stopped using the term, but the game system does not, and it refers to it as "fudging." So you would be fudging regardless of whether you use the term to describe your actions or not when you engage that rule.

Excellent! What is written is absolute and there's nothing we can do to change it. Understood. So I have to accept that I'm fudging, and per official writing by WotC you have to accept that the DM can't cheat. Both are written. If you don't have to accept their official statement that the DM can't cheat, I don't have to call altering die rolls fudging. I'll let you pick which one we do.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I totally agree with you here.

So does the article.

They institutionalized cheating. And then rebranded it as "fudging". Doesn't mean that it isn't cheating. It just means that you have bought into the branding.

It's great that you accept that the rules allow the DM to alter die rolls, as they do for the players, though in a different way. The problem is that the act of altering die rolls doesn't even rise to the level of cheating by definition. I'm not doing it for any kind of advantage or gain, or do trick the players, or in violation of a rule. None of the definitions of cheat fit what I do.

I just don't try to pretend that it's something that it isn't.

No you just accuse others of doing something that they aren't.
 

Ilbranteloth

Explorer
Not everyone plays RPGs as wargames. This is probably the only point on which [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] and I have something in common in our RPGing.

You seem to have misunderstood my point. You aren't using Gygax's AD&D rules with players who don't care about XP, thereby breaking the game. Because you've got players who don't care about XP, you've changed the rules of the game from those that Gygax published.

That was exactly what I said in my post. (Contrast 2nd ed AD&D, which doesn't change the rules - though it does make XP for gp optional - and hence gets tangled up in knots.)

I would add: a D&D game that does not use XP has moved a long way from the sort of game Gygax talked about in his AD&D books, even if it still uses the same chart for bend bars/lift gates rolls.

Sigh. You said “it breaks the game.” My experience says otherwise. That was my only point.

And again, I don’t think the various options in 2e appeared out of thin air. We were not the only ones using alternate rules for XP, and while I honestly don’t recall at this point, I would guess there are some Dragon magazine articles between the release of both that cover the topic as well. I particularly remember many disliking the idea that you get XP for gold.

On a side note, not only do I think we have a lot in common, I have also either come to understand my style of play, or have outright changed it because of your posts. The main difference I see is that there is a certain flow and approach to mechanics that I really like in AD&D/D&D, that you don’t. On the flip side, there are similar things in Story Now games that I don’t like. I’m finding that to a large degree we’re looking to solve a similar “problem,” we just prefer a different set of core rules as our starting point.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
This is total nonsense. Pacing character progression to generate a form of story arc - which is how, say, 4e works - is not a political decision of any form. It's an aesthetic decision.
Seen from a certain angle, it can easily (and I'm half-tempted to sadly say correctly) taken as a socio-political decision hidden under aesthetics. Not so much in the intentional pacing of character progression (i.e. you'll be level x here in the story, level x+1 by the time you get there in the story) but in the sense that a) everyone has to be the same level* and thus equal and b) xp or levels are awarded largely if not entirely just for showing up, regardless what you actually do once there.

Contrast this with earlier editions where xp were awarded individually based on what the character did (or how much loot it scooped, same idea) and if you-as-character didn't do anything in the game you got no xp for it.

It does follow the participation-medal model, like it or not.

* - at least 5e has tried to break away from this a bit, in that by design it supports a variable-level party much better than 3e and 4e did.

You seem to have misunderstood my point. You aren't using Gygax's AD&D rules with players who don't care about XP, thereby breaking the game. Because you've got players who don't care about XP, you've changed the rules of the game from those that Gygax published.
We did away with xp-for-g.p. ages ago as one of a boatload of changes we made to the Gygax game but we still see ourselves as playing the Gygax game in spirit, even if our rules are almost a complete rewrite of what 1e started out as.

I would add: a D&D game that does not use XP has moved a long way from the sort of game Gygax talked about in his AD&D books, even if it still uses the same chart for bend bars/lift gates rolls.
Agreed. Not using xp at all is a bridge too far.
 

Ilbranteloth

Explorer
I totally agree with you here.

So does the article.

They institutionalized cheating. And then rebranded it as "fudging". Doesn't mean that it isn't cheating. It just means that you have bought into the branding.

I cheat from time to time. Or, to use your vernacular, I fudge from time to time. Rarely, but, it is done.

I just don't try to pretend that it's something that it isn't.

So if the game has a mechanic like Inspiration where you can recollect the die cheating?

How about an ability that allows a creature to choose to succeed at a saving throw they failed when they rolled the die?

What about one that allows a creature to roll a die and apply that as a positive or negative modifier after the first die has been rolled?

Are any of these cheating by your definition?
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
And again, I don’t think the various options in 2e appeared out of thin air. We were not the only ones using alternate rules for XP, and while I honestly don’t recall at this point, I would guess there are some Dragon magazine articles between the release of both that cover the topic as well. I particularly remember many disliking the idea that you get XP for gold.
Agreed. I'm not sure I knew of any game back in the day that used xp for g.p. as written, with the exception of brand-new DMs just starting out who were playing right by the book. Most if not all dropped it outright, while a few modified it to greatly reduce the proportion of xp that treasure could represent.

But dropping xp entirely and replacing with a level-up (or "milestone") system? Not sure I knew any who did that; to me that's only something I heard about after I joined up here, long after the 1e era.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top