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?

 

[Maxperson]

Given how many RPGs there are which have a distinctive GM roll, but also do not permit the GM to fudge or ignore the dice, I think this claim is obviously false.

And there you go - one reason those RPGs have a GM is to provide a better RPGing experience than from pre-scripted Adventure Path RPGing.

Different, not better. Some people love the pre-scripted stuff.

 

[aramis erak]

Yes, but assuming we're talking about the current version (which if I'm referring to another, I'll generally mention that as it's not trivial) there is a Rule 0 and my post remains accurate.

Don't mean to blow off your post, just being clear as to my intent.

This thread isn't in the D&D section, KB, it's in the General Roleplaying one. So, no, we're NOT talking "Just D&D"...

 

[Maxperson]

This thread isn't in the D&D section, KB, it's in the General Roleplaying one. So, no, we're NOT talking "Just D&D"...

True, but most here have been discussing this thread only in terms of D&D, and a few only in terms of 5e. A big clue is if you see someone saying DM, rather than GM.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Given how many RPGs there are which have a distinctive GM roll, but also do not permit the GM to fudge or ignore the dice, I think this claim is obviously false.

And there you go - one reason those RPGs have a GM is to provide a better RPGing experience than from pre-scripted Adventure Path RPGing.

Hi Pem -

"Better" is relative and "given how many" is irrelevant. All you need is one use case that favors my opinion and it's just as true as yours is.

Not getting into it with you beyond this. History shows that if we're not on the same side of a discussion the thread count exponentially increases.

Be well,
KB

 

[Kobold Boots]

This thread isn't in the D&D section, KB, it's in the General Roleplaying one. So, no, we're NOT talking "Just D&D"...

Hi Aramis -

I don't know that what other people are talking about has much to do with what I'm talking about. Nor do I think that it matters much if I'm talking about what you're talking about.

However, I think the fact that I'm referencing "Rule 0" tells you what I am referring to. It may not be what you're referring to. That's cool. Generally, when I make an argument I set parameters to it and I don't move the goal posts. Helps keep the post count low.

Be well
KB

.

 

[Hussar]

Hi Aramis -

I don't know that what other people are talking about has much to do with what I'm talking about. Nor do I think that it matters much if I'm talking about what you're talking about.

However, I think the fact that I'm referencing "Rule 0" tells you what I am referring to. It may not be what you're referring to. That's cool. Generally, when I make an argument I set parameters to it and I don't move the goal posts. Helps keep the post count low.

Be well
KB

.

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.

So, which game are you actually referring to? It would help understanding to be specific. And stops blanket statements like this one:

In fact, if I had to choose I'd say fabricated cool is better, simply because it means I'm engaged, know the players well and did a good job. Dice are important and they should be listened to more than 90 percent of the time, but there's a reason the DM is there. If dice were meant to be the be all and end all, you could really play the game without one.

which is an opinion that I certainly don't share. The role of the DM most definitely is not to "fabricate cool" and I would detest playing at such a table. If you want to "fabricate cool" then write a story and I'll read it. I have zero interest at sitting at a table where the DM feels that his or her idea of cool is better than what is generated by the game. If it works for you, that's groovy. Go for it. I'm simply not interested in that sort of play anymore. Been there, done that.

I provide the script, the dice provide the direction.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Rule 0 and fabricated cool stuff coming out of my keyboard because I ignore the context of what was being replied to by the original posts.

1. Everyone who is on this forum set as a regular poster knows what Rule 0 is, knows what game it comes from and knows there's been at least a reference to a similar function as DM fiat going back to 1e. Certainly those replying against do. Reading the thread entirely proves that.

2. Every DM fabricates cool on behalf of their favorite or best player at least. My version of it simply allows for the table to have outcomes that don't deflate everyone's desire to continue to play; which was the context.

That looks different for a group of 12 year olds than it does for a group of 40 plus year olds, but it happens. I'm certainly not going to tell anyone I wouldn't play at their table if it didn't nor would I turn down an opportunity to be at a great DM's table if it did.

Everyone's mileage varies.
KB

 

[Aldarc]

Ooh yes, this is always a tricky one. Let's face it, a lot of the fun of RPGs is playing someone you are not and doing things you as a person are not capable of, physically, mentally, socially etc. I can't think of any system I've played over the years that doesn't require some sort of skill system to allow this, so I'd be interested to hear what conclusions you come to.

Possibly something akin to Dungeon World. It has no skill system, but there are ability checks. The GM never rolls, but the players roll against a static level of difficulty (roll 2d6 + ability: 7-9, partial success; 10-12, full success). But when a player rolls is dictated by when the GM rules that it constitutes a "move" (e.g., hack and slash, defend, spout lore, parley, etc.).

 

[pemerton]

I thought I would repost this, from upthread:

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.

In other words, the AD&D DMG had a notion of what sorts of changes to dice results did, or did not, conform to the major precepts of the game.

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

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.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It was not just a means to adjudicate actions that the rules didn't cover. Gygax begins by saying that that there are boundaries, but goes on to say this...

"Naturally, everything possible cannot be included in the whole of this work. As a participant in the game, I would not care to have anyone telling me exactly what must go into a campaign and how it must be handled; if so, why not play some game like chess? As the author I also realize that there are limits to my creativity and imagination. Others will think of things I didn't, and devise things beyond my capability. As an active Dungeon Master I kept a careful watch for things which would tend to complicate matters without improving them, systems devised seemingly to make the game drag for players, rules which lessened the fantastic and unexpected in favor of the mundane and ordinary."

He is specifically talking about changing the rules in the bolded areas. How you handle something is the rules. Keeping a watch out for thing(rules) which complicate matters, rules which drag things down, etc., is not referring to adjudicating something the rules don't cover. It's specifically talking about the rules themselves and what they do cover. Rule 0 in 1e allowed the DM to do what he wanted with the rules. It just cautioned very strongly against doing too much, lest you lose your players by making it a game they don't want to play in.

Heck, Rule 0 doesn't appear at ALL in 3e.

Yes, yes it does. It's right on page 4 of the DMG. It says these little gems.

"You are the master of the game--the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately the fun. This is a great deal of power and you must use it wisely."

You cannot be the master of the rules if you are a slave to them. That allows you to alter the rules. However, because I know you will argue this, I will show you a clearer quote that is also from page 4. In the Purpose of Sidebars section it says this.

"To give you an idea of some of the ways you can alter the D&D rules for your own campaign..."

That very explicitly is saying that you can alter the D&D rules. Rule 0.