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?

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?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

If a game gives a GM explicit authority to apply Force to mediate outcomes and change the trajectory of play, then of course the GM can’t cheat by applying Force to do so.

If players give their consent to the GM to apply Force to shape the play experience to the GM’s discretion, then of course the GM can’t cheat by applying Force.

But this idea that all games provide for that GM latitude/authority and/or all players (or even most) consent to it...it needs to stop. It’s not s hobby truism and continuously treating it like it is still doesn’t make it so.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sadras

Legend
I would strongly encourage that you reconsider what you think is implied about this poster's character based upon your own assumptions before I explicitly tell the mods what I think about what yours.

[MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] I have no issue with you or how you play the game at your table. You have had more than enough opportunities to correct my perspective of your opinion on cheating, instead you chose to thought police me using an intimidation tactic. Strange route to go when you're concerned about people's perspectives of you.
Keep in mind the only reason I responded was because of a new discussion with Umbran otherwise I considered our debate about cheaters closed. But that is the nature of forums.

If you clearly remember I asked where does one draw the line for cheating....and no line was given.
I apologise if you feel slighted (which you should not) but I stand by my assessment. Do what you feel is right.
 

Aldarc

Legend
[MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] I have no issue with you or how you play the game at your table. You have had more than enough opportunities to correct my perspective of your opinion on cheating, instead you chose to thought police me using an intimidation tactic. Strange route to go when you're concerned about people's perspectives of you.
Keep in mind the only reason I responded was because of a new discussion with Umbran otherwise I considered our debate about cheaters closed. But that is the nature of forums.

If you clearly remember I asked where does one draw the line for cheating....and no line was given.
I apologise if you feel slighted (which you should not) but I stand by my assessment. Do what you feel is right.
You may not have issue with me or how I play at my table, but I have an issue with you [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] making continued assumptions. Yes, you asked me to draw the line. If you remember correctly I said that the line was contextual. That does not give you license to insert false words or positions into my mouth. Nor does that equate to "anything goes within the realm of cheating." When I call you out on making this assumption, you kept pressing and repeating it. You think that I had opportunities to correct your perspective? I did call out these assumptions. I thought that was clear. But, no. That's not how this works from any place of etiquette. You had opportunities to back off from your assumptions when they were repeatedly called out as assumptions. But you didn't and instead continued with "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." To which I responded:
As the saying goes, "When you assume..."
I didn't finish this statement, as I thought that the rest was obvious, but I will complete it now: "When you assume, you make an ass of you and me." Let me spell out the message here: you should not falsely assume things. But then when you reply to Umbran...
This implies to me a poster who does not place any value on cheating, ANY CHEATING during a game. .i.e. anything goes within the REALMS OF CHEATING (I did mention this is my original post).
So to answer your earlier question: your statement here is where we draw the line, Sadras.
 

dragoner

KosmicRPG.com
It seems like 'house wins all ties' falls within the realm of cheating for this discussion, which for me as GM, I tend to give it over to the players to win ties, as I find it's easier to find challenge in success than failure. If the character dies, then their story is over, and that's boring.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Does the nature of the game encourage cheating?
Even if it does encourage cheating, that still doesn't give license to cheat.

I suspect that D&D fosters an attitude of "winning the game." A first person miniature wargame. My character must survive. My character must succeed. Play to win. Survive to win. Defeat the stuff and take their stuff.
Sure it does; and a player (usually) wants to survive, to defeat the stuff, to take the stuff, to 'win'. With this there is no problem.

But cheating in order to achieve these goals does present a problem, in that it reduces or even negates any sense of achievement on success.

I for one have experienced consistently lower rates of cheating, for example, when playing indie games such as Fate, Dungeon World, and Cypher System than I do with D&D. And it almost seems obvious why, at least when it comes to Fate. There are mechanisms for the player to not only positively influence the story in their favor but also to mitigate harmful circumstances produced by botched rolls or the GM's narrative framing. You can reroll. You can improve the dice results. There are ways to succeed when you fail the roll. You can potentially reject the GM's proposed narrative that affects an aspect of your character.
In other words, you can do all sorts of things to avoid the obvious: suck it up, take the hit; then get up, dust yourself off, and try again.

Sigh.

The game involves dice, and therefore luck; and someone who can't accept and-or deal with the bad luck that will inevitably happen - about as often as good luck, if random chance is allowed to have its way - is probably playing the wrong game.

It all comes down to a question of playing in good faith. A player who knowingly cheats in order to gain an undeserved advantage over the game or the other players/PCs is not playing in good faith, pure and simple. A DM who cheats in order to undermine good play and-or good luck on the players' side is also not playing in good faith. Neither of these are acceptable.

Simple mistakes, on the other hand, happen. A DM might mistakenly leave out some crucial detail of the scene narration. A player might misread her character sheet and think her wand has 10 charges when it only has 1. I can't count the number of times I've seen people (including me) glance at a d20 roll without looking closely and mix up '1' and '7' (both ways!) until someone looks closer and gets it right. These are all simple mistakes, easily correctable on the fly, and not a problem until and unless they start becoming an ongoing trend or pattern e.g. someone reads 1 as 7 every time...at which point unintentional error has probably veered into intentional cheating.

Lanefan
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
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.

This. While I think it is fair that a DM may "fudge" the dice from time to time, my general experience on both sides of the table is that this is usually done for the player's benefit. To avoid seemingly arbitrary "bad things". I agree it is is unfair for the DM to get to decide when he does or when he does not follow the rules. The DM may claim some authority over when a rule applies, but choosing to ignore the rules after they have already enforced them (or the reverse, enforcing them after choosing not to) without some kind of earnest heads up like "Hey I'm testing out how this rule works." or "Hey I'm not quite sure when this rule applies." is very much cheating.

These are the sort of approaches we see in broken political systems: the people in power get to choose when rules do or don't apply to them and everyone else, but the people not in power are always subject to the rules. It doesn't work in a microcosm from GM-to-Player as much as it doesn't work in macro from Noble-to-Serf.
 

Sadras

Legend
You may not have issue with me or how I play at my table, but I have an issue with you @Sadras making continued assumptions. Yes, you asked me to draw the line. If you remember correctly I said that the line was contextual. That does not give you license to insert false words or positions into my mouth. Nor does that equate to "anything goes within the realm of cheating." When I call you out on making this assumption, you kept pressing and repeating it. You think that I had opportunities to correct your perspective? I did call out these assumptions. I thought that was clear. But, no. That's not how this works from any place of etiquette. You had opportunities to back off from your assumptions when they were repeatedly called out as assumptions. But you didn't and instead continued with "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." To which I responded:
I didn't finish this statement, as I thought that the rest was obvious, but I will complete it now: "When you assume, you make an ass of you and me." Let me spell out the message here: you should not falsely assume things. But then when you reply to Umbran...
So to answer your earlier question: your statement here is where we draw the line, Sadras.

On a completely superficial level my comment and this below reply to you by Max

I'll take your word for it that you and Umbran are just fine with cheaters cheating in your games.

are very similar and yet, the just fine gets completely glossed over. In fact you reply That's fine.
Seriously! :confused:

Colour me confused on your online frustration with my comment.

But I will leave it at that as I have no interest in this dark hole of a conversation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tony Vargas

Legend
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).
Sure, some games do work without GM Force (or Illusionism or 'Good DMing' or whatever you want to call executive-vetoeing the results of applying the rules).

Other games don't, and come right out and call for Rulings when the Rules aren't working.

There's nothing inherently /wrong/ with the second sort. I mean, 'not working' is something wrong, obviously, in the technical sense of functionality, but not /wrong/ like "dude, eating that guy's liver with fava beans was just /wrong/."

If a game gives a GM explicit authority to apply Force to mediate outcomes and change the trajectory of play, then of course the GM can’t cheat by applying Force to do so.
Oh, never mind, I should have just kept reading. Carry on then.

But this idea that all games provide for that GM latitude/authority and/or all players (or even most) consent to it...it needs to stop. It’s not s hobby truism and continuously treating it like it is still doesn’t make it so.
The GM typically picks the game he wants to run, that could certainly include deciding to run a modified version of it, and it's not much of a stretch to modify it on the fly. So, yeah, the GM has the lattitude. The GM also decides who to invite to his game, and players whether to attend or not.

More practically, it's a lot easier for a Rat Bastard DM to find more victimsplayers than for a dejected lonely player fed up with same to find an honest GM, pulling a group together or fill an opening in an established one, with whom play that lovely game which works without GM Force that he's been wanting to play.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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:
Since all rules are guidelines and the DM has full power to alter them at will, it's not cheating if he does. He's just using his given ability as DM. Rulings over rules is just a part of that authority.

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.

A few things. First, the DM is given an unfair advantage by the rules by virtue of being DM. He has the given ability to drop 10,000 monsters on a first level party if he wants. It's the DM's responsibility, though, to use that power wisely as bad DMs lose players fast. Second, I don't view what [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] is describing as a playstyle. Bad DMing is bad DMing, not a style of play. If a game devolves into DM vs. Player, the players lose.

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).

By that definition, everything you avoid that you don't like is cheating. Avoid eating a cheese sandwich that you dislike while at a party? Cheater!! Intercept a football headed for the end zone? Cheater!! Work hard to avoid being fired? Cheater!! It's a crappy definition of cheating.

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?


CAN GOD CHEAT?

The answer to those is no.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
The DM's role, of and by itself, is arbitrary, to begin with.

Case in point, I ask a Rogue with a high DEX to do a skill check to scale a steep hillside in the dark in the rain. I don't
tell him the minimum roll I will accept, because I'm looking at it as a pass/fail situation, which he has a better than even
chance of, at succeeding. He doesn't know I'm looking for at least a 10 on a roll of a D20. If he rolls a 9, and I say
"you made it", is that cheating? If he rolls an 8, and I say "you made it, but lost your dagger, and split open your boot
during the climb", is that cheating?

There is a special D&D game, for folks who want to stick to RAW, with no compromises.

It's called Chess...

This example is useless for anything in the context of DMing. DM fairness is not established in the individual situation. It's established in the consistency of the application of rules or rulings to similar situations.

Determining the DC for a skill check, and the results of success and failure, is 100% within the realm of the DM. But that the rule. There isn't a rule that says "This cliff much have a DC of 15 or higher." Determining the difficulty of that cliff is the rule and that rule says the DM gets to make the call on what that cliff's DC is.

Lets say the DM decides the cliff is "hard", DC 15. Billy the Rogue rolls 15, and climbs the wall. Joey the Fighter rolls a 15 but this time the DM declares that he fails.

There's also a game for people who don't feel the rules matter at all: it's called Calvinball.

The rules are there for a reason: because we've discovered that there is a certain degree of "rules" and "fair application of the rules" that makes for good gaming, and that Calvinball, while fun in the short-term, is not a terribly great system for RPGs. It can be, with sufficient buy in, with players agreeing to general "rules of decorum" aka: no god-moding. But D&D printing rules bypasses that, instead of having to hold a forum to discuss what rules we're going to use this week, we all say "Hey I think this D&D thing has a good set of rules!"

Sticking to the rules consistently is necessary for a healthy game. We may not all apply the same rules, we may not all read the rules the same way, but what matters to make a DM not an arbitrary thing is consistent application of the rules we're applying, and consistent reading of them.

If Joe and Jim are constantly trying to figure out if they're playing D&D or Calvinball, they're going to have reduced enjoyment. PICK ONE. Apply the rules or don't. I don't really care which any DM decides to do, but don't apply the rules one day, not apply the rules another day, and then apply them differently the next. The rules are there for a reason. Just because they can be ignored, doesn't mean they should, but if you do, be consistent in ignoring them.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top