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

dragoner

KosmicRPG.com
Actually, an Apple II or TRS 80 could probably handle a complete AD&D PHB 1st level character generator sans equipment and spells, and would have no problem rolling dice as many times as needed.

There was a character generator, written in basic, in one of the magazines back then, maybe the Dragon. I remember programming it in and saving it on a floppy.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hm. I wonder if anyone can find me a quote reference of that from a game.

I guess you're looking for evidence of design explicitly calling out the use of GM Force as problematic or anathema to playing that game? Alright. pemerton named a few. Here are a few more.

Dogs in the Vineyard
How to GM p137-138, 143

"Don't play the story..."

"You can't have plot points in mind beforehand...what if the PCs reconcile Brother Ezekiel and Sister Abigail? You've wasted your time. Worse, what if, because you've invested your time, you don't let the PCs reconcile them?

You've robbed the players of the game.

Leave 'what's going to happen' to what happens."

"If you have a solution in mind, the game rules are going to mess you up bad.

I hope I've made that clear enough. If you're GMing by the rules, you have absolutely no power to nudge things toward your desired outcome. Its best for everybody, I mean especially its best for you too, if you just don't prefer one outcome to another."

Beyond the Wall
How to GM p 42

Avoid Illusionism - A section about not obviating player decision-points and choice by using covert GM Force to funnel them along a prescripted course.

Every Powered By the Apocalypse Game ever

1) All dice rolled by GM

2) Some iteration of the same axiom the is set out in Dogs above; "Play to find out what happens." You can find it on page 82 in AW, 187 in Blades, 126 in Masks, I can't find my copy of DW presently but the section in the SRD is here (and supported heavily in the rest of the text and design).

I hope that is enough. There is plenty more, but those are what I have right next to me.

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

I don't know who "the designers" are. There are lots of different designers. Some make better games than others. Some games are very well systemitized and when you follow the rules and the GMing ethos, its crazy, but stuff just works.

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.

Or. We either (a) can't rely on those people decrying those designers or (b) can't rely on those designs. It can be both of those things and what I've written directly above.

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.

My context is pretty simple. If a game, say Dogs above, says "follow the rules...you'll be much better off for it and the game will fight you if you don't" and it turns out to be true...well, that game is working. If a game says "you're the lead storyteller and you know what is best for each moment of play and play collectively so change rules/outcomes as you see fit"...and the players understand that play paradigm and are good with it and everyone has a great time...well, that game is also working.

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.

Well that is what I was talking about with respect to the social contract. So I would definitely beg to differ. System + integrity of social contract/trust + enjoyment by the collective are definitely the component parts of "the real question at hand" when it comes to cheating (by anyone at the table, GM included).
 

The anchor of your argument is "If players expect".

If there are no rules to back up that expectation or a social contract through session 0 conversation that gives them reason to expect that; and they are simply assuming - then the GM isn't cheating. It's a matter of bad communication.

Of course, if there are rules or a social contract in place, you're correct. However, in most cases were there such things the players that don't want to play that way wouldn't be there and the chance of such cheating is minimized.

2c
KB

I don't think I disagree with anything here except I would change your first sentence to:

The anchor of [the] argument is "If the system designs around/makes explicit or the players expect".
 

Les Moore

Explorer
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.

Dostoevsky once wrote:"If God did not exist, everything would be permitted." By extension, play
WITHOUT a DM would be your "Calvinball". I can't imagine a game where even the most scrupulous
DM applies the rules with perfect uniformity. I'd wager it would either be either the very best or worst gaming
experience. More than likely, the latter.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
Dostoevsky once wrote:"If God did not exist, everything would be permitted." By extension, play
WITHOUT a DM would be your "Calvinball". I can't imagine a game where even the most scrupulous
DM applies the rules with perfect uniformity. I'd wager it would either be either the very best or worst gaming
experience. More than likely, the latter.

Uniform application of the rules applies to intent not action. Understanding that DMs are humans and sometimes make mistakes is necessary. It is the desire and consistency of that desire in applying the rules evenly.

Playing with a DM whose every ruling could be different is tantamount to playing with no rules at all. Why? Because rules establish a shared set of expectations. If one minute a player can do A, and the next minute they cannot, for no discernible reason other than DM whim, it leads to an inability to develop a set of expectations. The human brain likes expectations, it's what allows us to judge once situation against another and make an informed decision. Imagine if Tuesday gravity was only 7.4 m/s and then Friday there was no gravity at all, but next Tuesday gravity was 18 m/s you'd never be able to establish a set of expectations about gravity. But if every Tuesday gravity got weaker, and every Friday there was no gravity it would allow players to establish a set of expectations about how the game-world operates. This set of expectations is what allows the players to make decisions within the context of the game-world.

Without those expectations, the players literally can't make decisions. They might as well flip a taco and if it lands on Tuesday then it's a baby.
 

Umbran

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

The very first sentence of the OP is, "Gary Alan Fine's early survey of role-playing games found that everybody cheated. " It then goes on to discuss and take some quotes from Fine's work, Shared Fantasy.

Yes, you have to actually go get the book (300 pages of it) to see the details. Fine did research on the early days of RPGs, the first to look at the people who play as a community.

So, if Fine came to the conclusion that cheating is common - how do you wish to counter his statement? Or do you wish to say, "I haven't read the book, so I will take my own personal experience over these research results."? Or what?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

S

Sunseeker

Guest
Honestly I don't understand why people are so surprised, or upset.

Has anyone ever seen those surveys on cheating in high-school? Or in college? The answer is the same: everyone cheats.

Why? Because humans cheat.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I can't imagine a game where even the most scrupulous
DM applies the rules with perfect uniformity. I'd wager it would either be either the very best or worst gaming
experience. More than likely, the latter.

Yeah. Online conversations have this tendency to have the topic drive to polar extremes. The game with strict and absolute adherence to the rules is chess! The game with no adherence to the rules is Calvinball!

Well guess what folks - we live between those extremes, not at them, so that those statements aren't actually relevant to us. There's this thing called the "middle ground", which is what we should probably focus on.
 

Really? No way. Why should I cheat as a player? It ruins the fun.

The only time I cheat is as a DM, and then in both ways, for and against the players - but surely not to kill them.
Either to challenge them more (monster was too weak, so let's tweak it "online" or send some help), or to save them from some undeserved super bad luck (bad luck and / or stupidity still can kill a PC!).
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I don't know who "the designers" are.

I am sorry, but that comes across as a little obtuse.

YOU were the one who said games had statements not to cheat. Those games popped into existence from the quantum vacuum, or were they designed by somebody? Come on.

However, I was speaking in general - that the words written by a designer who has never met your players cannot be just trusted. Designers have implicit assumptions about play. Is that set of assumptions going to fit *ALL* players? Unlikely. It then follows that their statements about the system working, as written, is apt to be incorrect for some. Designers are (to date) human beings. Since when do human beings make flawless things?

Some games are very well systemitized and when you follow the rules and the GMing ethos, its crazy, but stuff just works.

For some. "Works" is subjective, as already noted earlier in the thread.

Dogs in the Vineyard, for example - I have played one session, and watched several others. Not a one of the "worked" in any meaningful sense. The players took so much time with dice and bidding that one conversation took 3 hours to resolve. I know some folks swear by the game, but I know others swear at it. And that's really the point I'm making here.

One size does not fit all.


Well that is what I was talking about with respect to the social contract. So I would definitely beg to differ.

When there are folks in the discussion saying that a technique has bad results, irrespective of the social contract, then the social contract isn't really the question of the moment.

I daresay, when someone is telling me that a game just works if played as written, all the time, for everyone, again, I don't think social contracts are the main question at hand.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top