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

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
So, how does that fly in the face of the surveying behind the OP?

The only survey I saw in there was the one about DMs fudging, and since DMs can't cheat...

Did they lie about their survey results?

I don't think they lied, but the survey I saw was informal and didn't really involve cheating.

Did they somehow just happen to choose a population in which lots of cheating happens, but that population is not representative? Have times changed, so that the results are no longer relevant? Are people hypocrites, and everyone cheats, but nobody is okay with anyone *else* cheating?

First, everyone doesn't cheat. Second, I think that many people are hypocrites about cheating. Lots of people are okay with them doing something, but not other people doing the same thing to them back.

Any statement of what "the real majority" thinks has to deal with the survey results.

As I said above, the only survey I saw didn't even involve cheating. I also read the first 10 or so pages of the article(it's very long). It mentioned a study of pre-adolescents, which being so young have control issues, so of course cheating is prevalent. And it made a ton of claims of cheating without providing any real proof. One claim even involved an example of the DM allowing a player to re-roll a die, and called that cheating. As the DM can make that ruling within the rules of the game, that wasn't cheating, either.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
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.

In any event, as we all know, what the designers claim is always absolutely true! Wait... no... that's not right.

Given the number of times I see threads where people berate, insult, and vilify game designers for getting things wrong, I don't think we can rely on what the game tells us.

Specifically, "working" is context dependent. I would take the word of a GM considering their own group about what works for them a whole lot more than I take the word of a designer who has never seen the group.

Should the GM tell players before the start of the campaign that they reserve the right to fudge, or any other major rules changes, so that players who cannot stand playing a game that isn't strict can avoid it? Sure. But that's not the real question at hand.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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.

Which is why I specified D&D. I also said other games might be different if they constrain the DM. Whether or not the DM can cheat depends entirely on the game being played.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
This implies to me a poster who does not place any value on cheating, ANY CHEATING during a game.

Okay, here's the thing. You say it implies to you. I say you inferred it improperly. But that's neither here nor there..

The author told you you got the wrong idea. And you continue to defend your getting that idea. That's not useful.


You cannot compare stealing cookies (mom forgiving theft/DM forgiving cheating) and a baseball bat to sister's face (mom forgiving violence/DM forgiving violence). I do not see how you can possibly equate the two.

I am comparing "small rules violation implies any other rules violation is okay," to "small rules violation implies any other rules violation is okay". In terms of pure Vulcan-level logic, the analogy holds. The moral element is to bring out your reaction to get this point: If you say, "Wait, I didn't mean *that big* a rules violation was okay, clearly that's nonsense!" that indicates that the "anything" was not appropriate. This displays how the small violation does not reasonably imply *anything* goes. It only implies small, roughly equivalent things should be okay.

And with that, we should be done.
 

Ricah

First Post
As a GM/ DM, I have always asked that players roll 4d6, re-rolling 1's and 2's, because, really, a minimum of 9 in a stat is average. A character would not be adventuring otherwise.
Also, I may fudge a roll simply for the reason, 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. After, 10th level, no pulling punches. That's just me. Not sure about other DM's.
 

Hussar

Legend
Seems like there's some pretty fine hair splitting going on. Oh, it's not cheating, it's fudging, which, in any other context, would be called cheating. :D If the DM is deliberately changing results, in gaming terms, we say it's fudging, mostly because that carries less connotation than flat out calling it cheating.

But, let's be honest here, a rose by any other name...
 

Dioltach

Legend
Can't happen* if all rolls are done at the table where others can see 'em.

* - unless someone in fact legitimately does roll really well. Random chance can be funny that way.

Lanefan

I remember one session where four of my players (in full view) all rolled up characters with 2-3 scores of 18, and most of the other scores were around the 15-17 mark. I recently also had five sessions in a row, as a player, where I never once rolled above 12 on a d20, and most of my rolls were 4s and 5s. Random chance indeed.
 

Sadras

Legend
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.

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
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pemerton

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.
"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."
 

delericho

Legend
Can't happen* if all rolls are done at the table where others can see 'em.

* - unless someone in fact legitimately does roll really well. Random chance can be funny that way.

I was at a table once where a player 'rolled' 14, 17, 18, 18, 18, 10. It was all done out in the open where others could see them quite clearly - those really were the numbers that came up on the dice. (The DM then allowed the player to apply the old BD&D rule whereby he dropped the '14' to a '12' to boost the '17' to yet another '18'.)

The trick, however, was that the player in question, after that '17' came up, picked up the dice and dropped them again from a very low height, thus imparting minimal energy to the dice, significantly reducing the randomness.

To this day, the player swears blind that there was no intent to cheat - that it was just a very lucky set of rolls.

(This, incidentally, was the same infamous "semi-serious Ravenloft campaign" where a different player immediately destroyed the mood by calling her Rogue 'Jigglypuff'. It lasted all of one session.)
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top