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?

 

[Kobold Boots]

Aldarc quoted "rule zero" from the 3E books. I don't see how that rule makes it impossible for the GM to cheat.

So, um. I'm sure you'll agree that 3.0 is directly superceded by 3.5 and 3.5 was the errata to clean up 3.0.

D&D 3.5 states in several places that the DM can treat any rule as a mere suggestion at any time. Examples: bottom of page 64, Player's Handbook (Access to Skills), and most directly in the DMG on page 6: "Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

Lets' not get into trivium or defining specific scenarios to support a point to support someone's preference. Rule zero has meant what it's meant since early D&D, though it's been stated in multiple ways. DM's can not cheat. They can however do things that cause them to lose players.

 

[Maxperson]

So, um. I'm sure you'll agree that 3.0 is directly superceded by 3.5 and 3.5 was the errata to clean up 3.0.

D&D 3.5 states in several places that the DM can treat any rule as a mere suggestion at any time. Examples: bottom of page 64, Player's Handbook (Access to Skills), and most directly in the DMG on page 6: "Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

Lets' not get into trivium or defining specific scenarios to support a point to support someone's preference. Rule zero has meant what it's meant since early D&D, though it's been stated in multiple ways. DM's can not cheat. They can however do things that cause them to lose players.

The 3.5 DMG in the section talking about die rolling specifically says that the DM can't cheat. It's in explicit black and white. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] ignores things like that, though.

 

[prosfilaes]

They institutionalized cheating.

If someone has a character with the Luck domain (Pathfinder), is it cheating if they use their power to reroll a d20?

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

The fact that you cheat in friendly games is disturbing; what makes you think it's okay? If you want to define it as cheating, then you shouldn't be doing it.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

Well, in general when playing published adventures you could only go up a level when you returned to town. And you could only go up one level at a time. So most adventures were worth one level, or at least that’s the simple solution. Instant milestone leveling, which was made more concrete in 2e if I recalled.

 

[Hussar]

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?

Of course they are. How can they not be? You are altering the outcome of dice based on a particular aesthetic. 5e has simply institutionalized cheating. It's adopted cheating into the rules in order to create a particular outcome.

The only difference here is that you have the veneer of respectability because it's "in the rules". One doesn't suddenly stop lying when playing Liars Dice just because the game expects you to lie and is entirely based on your ability to lie convincingly. You're still lying and it's a lot of fun.

I'm not attaching any value judgement here. That's other people's schtick. That it's cheating, well, who cares? Of course it's cheating. But, so what? You are achieving a particular goal, that goal is seen as a good thing, so, where's the problem.

The issue here, that I see, is that people are getting all bent out of shape because it's being called "cheating". Like I said, I don't buy into the rebranding of fudging, or "altering a die roll" or whatever phrase tickles your fancy. It's cheating but that doesn't make it BAD.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Of course they are. How can they not be? You are altering the outcome of dice based on a particular aesthetic. 5e has simply institutionalized cheating. It's adopted cheating into the rules in order to create a particular outcome.

The only difference here is that you have the veneer of respectability because it's "in the rules". One doesn't suddenly stop lying when playing Liars Dice just because the game expects you to lie and is entirely based on your ability to lie convincingly. You're still lying and it's a lot of fun.

I'm not attaching any value judgement here. That's other people's schtick. That it's cheating, well, who cares? Of course it's cheating. But, so what? You are achieving a particular goal, that goal is seen as a good thing, so, where's the problem.

The issue here, that I see, is that people are getting all bent out of shape because it's being called "cheating". Like I said, I don't buy into the rebranding of fudging, or "altering a die roll" or whatever phrase tickles your fancy. It's cheating but that doesn't make it BAD.

Yeah, well when I look at the definition of cheating it’s being dishonest, fraudulent, it is by its ver definition a bad thing. So yes, I do object because none of those rules qualify.

 

[pemerton]

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

No. I said using Gygaxian XP with players who don't care about XP will break the game. You replied - and I quote - "we played AD&D without XP". So why would I think that your experience would be other than it was?

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood my point, and somehow see it as an attack on you rather than a prediction - as it turns out, a correct prediction - about what your game would look like, namely, one that doesn't use Gygaxian XP.

I don’t think the various options in 2e appeared out of thin air.

Who asserted that they did? My point is that [edit for clarity: 2nd ed] AD&D uses a wargaming XP system (XP for monsters, plus a few other bits and pieces on the side) yet presents the goal of play as something other than wargaming. That's just one of the ways in which 2nd ed adheres to a Gygaxian mechanical legacy that is at odds with the play experience it (at least notionally) is offering.

 

[pemerton]

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.

What socio-political decision does this reveal?

I can certainly tell you, as a cold hard fact, that both rather left wing and rather right wing posters on this board have enjoyed 4e. (I am not going to identify said posters, as that would violate board rules, but my judgements of political affiliation are not speculative but based rather on PM correspondence.)

In any event, to reiterate and elaborate: the decision is aesthetic. It is a decision that levelling is not a reward of play, but rather a pacing device.

It is comparable to the way Pendragon handles time: whereas in Gygax's AD&D time is a resource, to be used sensibly (or squandered foolishly) in improving one's position as a player (see his DMG p 38), in Pendragon one adventure occurs each year. Time in Pendragon is not a resoure, or a reward, but rather the passage of time is a backdrop to the unfolding events of play.

So, in 4e, the increasing prowess and reputation of the PCs ia a backdrop to the unfolding events of play.

These are decisions about game design, with the aim of producing a particular experience. They are not political manifestos.

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

No. A medal is an award for achievement. In 4e XP are not an award for achievement as a player (unless you count playing the game as an achievement). They are a pacing device.

Which goes back to my point that not everyone plays RPGs as competitions or wargames.

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.

If there is no XP awarded for successful dungeon exploration (ie extraction of gold and other treasure) then I don't really see how the game is Gygaxian in sprit.

Not using xp at all is a bridge too far.

I used XP in my first 4e campaign because that was the default in the rulebooks. In future I wouldn't bother. Levelling when everyone at the table things it would be fun, or make sense, to level up would be just as effective (maybe moreso) and require less bookkeeping.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

No. I said using Gygaxian XP with players who don't care about XP will break the game. You replied - and I quote - "we played AD&D without XP". So why would I think that your experience would be other than it was?

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood my point, and somehow see it as an attack on you rather than a prediction - as it turns out, a correct prediction - about what your game would look like, namely, one that doesn't use Gygaxian XP.

Who asserted that they did? My point is that AD&D uses a wargaming XP system (XP for monsters, plus a few other bits and pieces on the side) yet presents the goal of play as something other than wargaming. That's just one of the ways in which 2nd ed adheres to a Gygaxian mechanical legacy that is at odds with the play experience it (at least notionally) is offering.

I’d agree I don’t understand your point, but that’s ok. And no, I didn’t take it as an attack. I guess I just think it’s simpler than that. Im not really sure what you mean that the mechanical legacy is at odds with the play experience.

I started following the XP rules, but it was really just a lot of math, and that isn’t my strong suit. Since after doing all the math at the end of an adventure raised us 1 level, it just seemed to make sense to skip the math bit.

It didn’t seem to change the way the game played at all. I suppose you could say we were still following the XP system, but as [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] pointed out, AD&D didn’t have symmetrical leveling. We more or less did, but since we had new characters coming in fairly frequently, we did have parties of different level characters.

So I’m not sure how far you’d say we strayed from Gygaxian XP.

But my comment was still an objection with the statement that it would “break the game.” It certainly never felt broken.

If you’re referring to the style of play of my games being related to whether we use XP or not? I certainly don’t think so. The style of our games was based largely on Ed Greenwood’s articles in Dragon magazine and how we thought his games worked. The Ecology of... articles and the lengthy lore given for things like spell books. There were other authors as well at the time, but he was by far the most influential. Oddly coupled with Tomb of Horrors, Keep on the Borderlands, Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Descent into the Depths of the Earth, Village of Hommlet, and Queen of the Demonweb Pits as my models for dungeon and adventure design. Somehow we skipped Vault of the Drow.

We loved the wilderness sections, the town sections, I think we must have spent three or four sessions in the keep before ever heading out to the wilderness. And several more there (this was back in the day when we could do marathon sessions several times a week...)

Most of the adventures were homebrew, but those probably influenced me the most. Of course we played nearly every adventure that came out (except the Vault...).

 

[pemerton]

This repeated claim that GMs, as such, cannot cheat - that they have carte blanche to declare at any time that the content of the shared fiction is X, or that the outcome of some resolution process is Y, where X and Y can be whatever the GM wants - is just bizarre.

Perhaps there are some RPG groups, somewhere, who play like that. But there are very many who do not.

In that sort of game, what is the function of the players? To make suggestions to the GM as to what should be allowed as part of the shared fiction? In what sense is that even roleplaying, if even the truth in the fiction of statements about what a PC thinks or does is entirely dependent upon the discretion of the GM?