• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

He also says "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"; that adjudication of consequences in combat should "take into account what the monster has done", and that fudging combat rolls would be "contrary to the major precepts of the game". None of those remarks is about "giving the DM the power to do anything he wants". They evince a very clear conception of what the game is about (skilled play) and what the GM's function is (honouring skilled play, and appropriately managing content introduction, especially when the latter threatens not to honour skilled play).

"It is your right to control the dice at any time.." is directly about giving the DM the power do do anything he wants with dice.

"I would not care to have anyone telling me exactly what must go into a campaign and how it must be handled" and" 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." are about letting us know that nothing he says binds the DM. They are only suggestions. He then goes on to say how he changes things when he thinks they should be changed.

Gygax is all about the DM being able to change what he wants, but is also about warning the DM to be careful lest he ruin the game by changing too much.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There are times I wish Gary were still here to end debate about what he actually meant then and what he feels now. There are too many threads where we all go "hey Gary said", and those of us who were lucky enough to actually have chatted with him a few times might have some insight that will never be accepted by those of us that didn't.

However, here's a thought, and it's my thought not Gary's. There has been no game in the history of D&D where the dice have been followed absolutely AND skilled play alone has resulted in a high level character. While I'm willing to believe you if you say, "sure there has" there's not going to be enough evidence to prove it without doubt. Humans are not modrons, so I feel highly confident in my position.

Have you read this thread? I'm not through with it, but it's very interesting.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?22566-Q-amp-A-with-Gary-Gygax&highlight=GYGAX
 

But using that as evidence that che... err... fudging is fine well, actually, now that I think about it, yeah, I'll buy that. All it does is redefine cheating as fudging so that DM's can have the warm fuzzies about cheating in the game and pretend that they aren't actually cheating.

You don't even need to do that much when it comes to fudging in 5e. The 5e rules specifically say the DM can fudge rolls, so he doesn't need to change a rule.

Like I said, if fudging was perfectly fine, then why is it done in secret at most tables? You only hide it because everyone at the table hates it.

You hide it for the same reason you hide monster stats, secret doors, NPC abilities, maps, and more. It works better when hidden is all. Not because the table hates it.
 

RPGs, including DnD, have vastly changed since Gygax. And even back in the 70s, there was a lot of arguing over this issue, so not sure that Gygax quotes really strengthen anyone's position. There is also the problem that Gygax's own views shifted over time, and were often contradictory.
This is true. My point is that to claim that D&D has always been about the GM doing whatever s/he wants to ensure "fun" is not correct. It's a type of homogenisation of different RPGing experiences.

No one thinks that downhill skiing, water skiing and cross-country skiing are exactly the same, even though all involve skis. No one thinks that canasta and bridge are exactly the same, even though both involve playing cards. Yet there is this repeated notion, in this thread and many others on these boards, that there is a single thing called RPGing and a particular GM approach is what GMing is.

When that notion is in play, it makes it very hard to talk about different sorts of RPGs, different sorts of RPG techniques, different styles of play, etc.

EDIT: This post from Hussar raises some similar points:

Well, that's fair. Then again, why am I playing a game I don't like? Hopefully the rules of the game I'm playing are cool to me, otherwise, why bother?
Part of the homogenisation that goes with "all GMing includes permission to fudge, "rule zero", etc" is this idea that the rules of the game don't matter, and that differences in rules don't produce different experiences.

(Except for 4e, which is bad because it makes it harder to weave your magic as GM.)

As far as magicians go, I'm not expected to do anything other than be an audience. I'm not expected to actually perform and the performance doesn't revolve around me. At an RPG session, the entire group is expected to contribute to the "performance". Which becomes problematic when at least some of the group isn't playing above board.
Another part of the homogenisation is the idea that players are, overwhelmingly, audience.

The idea that the GM might be the audience for the players, and that this might require the GM to be bound by rules, bardely even gets a look-in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

I always interpreted "the DM change change the rules" as clear permission from the game makers to add or subtract or alter rules before play. IOW, kit bashing, altering classes, doing this or that or the other thing is perfectly fine.

But using that as evidence that che... err... fudging is fine well, actually, now that I think about it, yeah, I'll buy that. All it does is redefine cheating as fudging so that DM's can have the warm fuzzies about cheating in the game and pretend that they aren't actually cheating.

Same sort of thing applies to character generation where DM's and players che... err... fudge all the time unless you use point buy values.

It's something I see as very immature play to be honest. I'm there to actually play the game. Which means that I place a much higher value on the rules than on anyone else's notion of "rule of cool". Either as a DM or a player. I don't want your "rule of cool". I really, really don't. I don't think it results in more fun at the table. I think that it takes away far too much from the game when the players cannot ever be sure if their victories were earned or a gimme.

Like I said, if fudging was perfectly fine, then why is it done in secret at most tables? You only hide it because everyone at the table hates it.

The DM is supposed to hide things, that's why he generally sets up, and plays behind a screen. He's tasked with narrating, and I doubt very many folks
would be very interested in a DM who openly explained all his math and motives. Not many players I know would. Do you want the DM to say, at the
outset of battle "this is a 63 HP Minotaur" ? or "well, when I rolled HD for the surprise attack, for the Rogue, it was only a 9, and I factored in your +2 CON and DEX bonus, into your saving throw, so he escaped unscathed" ?

Obviously, either example puts TMI in front of the DM's screen, and is arbitrary and disruptive to game flow. IMO, the only time folks will hate the DM is
when he's giving them information they don't need to know, or that slows down the game.
 

The DM is supposed to hide things, that's why he generally sets up, and plays behind a screen.
I think I used a screen for one session in the past 30 years. Some 4e boxed set that I bought had a screen in it, and I tried it for one session to see what it was like.

It got in the way, and has never come out since.

I already quoted some RPG rules text upthread about conventions (in BW and MHRP) for the GM when it comes to rolling dice and honouring their results.
 

The only thing I hide from my players, are unexplored rooms of a dungeon, the plot that I've prepared for them, and some stats of opponents. I've noticed that the DM screen is usually just there to indicate my authority as a DM, but I might as well put it aside. Most of my super secret notes are in a binder anyway, and I make most of my rolls in the open. Especially in regards to combat. Rolls for random tables I tend to make behind the DM screen, since the outcome of the dice has no meaning to the players, since they don't know what is on the random tables.

You hide it for the same reason you hide monster stats, secret doors, NPC abilities, maps, and more. It works better when hidden is all. Not because the table hates it.

Do you though? Because back when I still fudged as a DM, I hid it because I did not want to give the feeling that I as a DM was protecting them. I wanted them to think that the dice fell where they did, and that their victory was their own. When they survived by the skin of their teeth, I wanted them to think they earned that victory, when in reality they would have (probably) lost/died.

Not at all the same reason that I keep the plot and dungeons a secret.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Do you though? Because back when I still fudged as a DM, I hid it because I did not want to give the feeling that I as a DM was protecting them. I wanted them to think that the dice fell where they did, and that their victory was their own. When they survived by the skin of their teeth, I wanted them to think they earned that victory, when in reality they would have (probably) lost/died.

Not at all the same reason that I keep the plot and dungeons a secret.
I don't fudge to protect them, though. I fudge for two reasons. First, to counter extreme bad luck. Not bad luck. EXTREME bad luck. If my dice are hot and I'm hitting and critting left and right, and their dice are cold and they can't hit squat. I'm not going to kill PCs for extreme bad luck. When I fudge in that situation, it isn't to protect them. Nobody is kept safe. I will just even things up a little bit to give them a chance to win, but not guarantee by any stretch a win. The entire party could still potentially TPK. The second reason is to make the BBEG more exciting if he's going down to bad luck. This also isn't protection, or even danger to the PCs. I won't fudge enough to allow the BBEG to win the fight. Just last a round or two longer so that he isn't a let down.

In both examples they will still have earned their victory. Nothing is being handed to them.
 

The DM is supposed to hide things, that's why he generally sets up, and plays behind a screen. He's tasked with narrating, and I doubt very many folks
would be very interested in a DM who openly explained all his math and motives. Not many players I know would. Do you want the DM to say, at the
outset of battle "this is a 63 HP Minotaur" ? or "well, when I rolled HD for the surprise attack, for the Rogue, it was only a 9, and I factored in your +2 CON and DEX bonus, into your saving throw, so he escaped unscathed" ?

Obviously, either example puts TMI in front of the DM's screen, and is arbitrary and disruptive to game flow. IMO, the only time folks will hate the DM is
when he's giving them information they don't need to know, or that slows down the game.

I hide the DM side for the simple reason that I'm doing a lot more back there than rolling dice. I have stats I don't want them to see. I have plot notes I don't want them to read. I have little pictures for NPCs who haven't shown up yet.

Beyond that: I've found players make decisions differently when they don't know whats on the other side of the screen. I feel like they make decisions based on the circumstances they believe to be true rather than the mathematical results they can see on the dice.
 


Into the Woods

Related Articles

Remove ads

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top