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]

Actually kitbashing isn't really a comparable here, in that it's something (usually) done before play even begins in a campaign; as opposed to fudging/cheating which can really only occur during the run of play.

The reason I brought up kit-bashing: Because Rule 0 has to exist before any kit bashing has the foundation of being considered legal at anyone's table based on RAW.

Why it's relevant, because if Rule 0 has as one of its benefits that the DM is the arbiter of what is legal at his or her table, then it eliminates DM cheating AND enables kit-bashing. If your opinion is that the DM can cheat, and you choose to ignore Rule 0, then you must if logic is sound - not kit bash. At all.

The fact that everyone must agree ahead of time about kit bashing does not make it legal. Rule 0 enables it to be so.

(edit: My motive in pointing this out is not to start some crazy side conversation about legality of kit bashing vs. cheating, but to point out how silly the cheating discussion is when the DM has the finger pointed at them.)

 

[Lanefan]

Isn't Rule 0 considered a separate, albeit related, issue distinct from "fudging the dice"?

Where? The word "cheat" only occurs once in the 5E DMG in a villain NPC table (p. 95). The dice-rolling section (p. 235) does not prohibit players from cheating. It just suggests that if a player is engaging in behavior like scooping the dice before anyone can see them, to encourage as the GM that they be less secretive. Do note that this not a rules prohibition against cheating. Hell, right above it, the DMG says "Have Snacks," which makes that more of an explicit rule than "no cheating" for 5E.

However, at the root we're not talking about 5e, we're talking about 1e if any specific e at all; in that the original survey was done in 1983 - the heart of the 1e era.

And 1e, in the DMG, does reference DM fudging...though in somewhat typical Gygax style he says "don't do it" in one place and "sometimes it's OK" in another...

My preference here though is for some degree of consistency between the player and gamemaster. Either GM and players can't fudge or GM and players can fudge (both within reason).

Where I see the DM as being a somewhat different breed of animal, able to do all kinds of things within the game that players cannot. She just has to make sure she's always acting in good faith, as part of the responsibility of being a DM in the first place.

I imagine that it would be a non-controversial argument if I were to put forth that cheating likely occurs at a lower frequency in D&D games that use standard arrays or point buys than in dice-rolling methods.

In the one aspect of stat generation, yes. In all other aspects e.g. rolls made during the run of play the cheat level would likely be around the same regardless of char-gen method.

 

[Kobold Boots]

However, at the root we're not talking about 5e, we're talking about 1e if any specific e at all; in that the original survey was done in 1983 - the heart of the 1e era.

And 1e, in the DMG, does reference DM fudging...though in somewhat typical Gygax style he says "don't do it" in one place and "sometimes it's OK" in another...

Where I see the DM as being a somewhat different breed of animal, able to do all kinds of things within the game that players cannot. She just has to make sure she's always acting in good faith, as part of the responsibility of being a DM in the first place.

In the one aspect of stat generation, yes. In all other aspects e.g. rolls made during the run of play the cheat level would likely be around the same regardless of char-gen method.

Agree with this in spirit.

In terms of 1e, and Gygax in particular.. he was ok with fudging rolls when game play but not game balance was affected. If you look at how he felt about attributes and especially random treasure generation.. that was hard no. If you look at the occasional "DM just killed the entire party and ended the day early" situations, that was less of a problem.

However, it's pretty clear that 1e had a high fatality expectation and every table had different tolerances for it.

 

[Gibili]

As I said much earlier, I have experienced less cheating in games when the game system mechanics empower the players to have a degree of personal authority over the narrative situations

I think we're in danger here is isolating dice fudging/cheating as if it were the only option available to the DM or player to ensure that everyone is having fun and discussing it in that context? I agree with the point above, and the rest of the excellent post, and I would say that there are many ways that 'having fun' can be ensured for all parties involved without resorting to massaging the dice rolls. I think I also gather from everyone's posts that we all think dice fudging is not a go-to option, not even close, and for some people never an option.

For me, I pretty much only play with the same bunch of wonderful fools that I have been playing with for over 30 years, so that's an entirely different situation to playing in new groups, or with people you don't really know. I'd be interested to hear from folks who are in those sorts of scenarios, as players or DMs, about what they have encountered and what the group or the DM felt or did about it.

 

[Gibili]

But why in secret? Who not do it out in the open?

Because for me as a player, I don't want to know, or even care if the DM is fudging it. As long as the game is fun and exciting then they're doing a fine job in my book. Yes, I don't want it to be obvious as it makes it much harder to suspend disbelief in the situation. If my intrepid team and I are fighting a fire giant, who is giving us a right hiding, which let's face it is usually the case, then I don't want the DM, in an effort to adjust the flow of the battle, to suddenly say that the giant spontaneously combusts, but if said giant misses a hit or does less damage than the DM's dice indicate, then fine.

Dice rolling is just there to create a random element, so the game isn't just an exercise in collaborative story writing. Stuff can happen that you weren't expecting and have no control over...unless you cheat. That's one of the things that makes this hobby such fun, for me anyway. I was going to write "Stuff can happen that you weren't expecting, good or bad" but I didn't because it may be good or bad for the character, but it is always good for me the player.

 

[Maxperson]

Isn't Rule 0 considered a separate, albeit related, issue distinct from "fudging the dice"?

Not really. Fudging is a property of rules changes. The DM can change the rules on the fly, which allows him to fudge when he wants to.

Page 4 of the 5e DMG says this, "And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."

That clearly allows him to alter the rules as he sees fit.

The dice-rolling section (p. 235) does not prohibit players from cheating. It just suggests that if a player is engaging in behavior like scooping the dice before anyone can see them, to encourage as the GM that they be less secretive. Do note that this not a rules prohibition against cheating. Hell, right above it, the DMG says "Have Snacks," which makes that more of an explicit rule than "no cheating" for 5E.

If the rules don't say the players can do something, they can't do it. The die rolling section is a good one to point out, though. It explicitly allows the DM to fudge rolls, so there's actually a 5e rule for fudging, making it impossible for fudging to be cheating in 5e(not that it was possible before).

My preference here though is for some degree of consistency between the player and gamemaster. Either GM and players can't fudge or GM and players can fudge (both within reason). I'm not a fan, however, of accusing players of cheating as a negative while also saying that "the GM can't cheat" but that they can fudge because that is intended as a positive. It strikes me as an absurd and somewhat hypocritical double-standard: "It's cool when law enforcement breaks the law when it's done for 'the greater good,' but there will be hell to pay if any other regular citizen breaks the law, no matter the infraction."

Is it a double standard that the DM can create encounters, but the players can't? Is it a double standard that the DM awards experience, but the players can't? Is it a double standard that the DM creates the adventure, not the players? It seems to me that you are failing to understand that the role of DM comes with abilities that the players don't get.......like fudging dice.

 

[Lanefan]

Is it a double standard that the DM can create encounters, but the players can't? Is it a double standard that the DM awards experience, but the players can't? Is it a double standard that the DM creates the adventure, not the players? It seems to me that you are failing to understand that the role of DM comes with abilities that the players don't get.......like fudging dice.

Though in fairness the players are probably going to expect the DM to create encounters, create adventures, and award experience - but they're not necessarily going to expect her to fudge the dice and may or may not react rather negatively if they find out such has been done.

 

[Imaculata]

I find an important rule of DMing to be. Never, ever, no matter how much you might want to, take the cool factor away from your players and their actions. At every tier they should be able to do cool things of appropriate scale. (edit - and many times over the years the dice may not allow you the off the cuff epic story that makes everyone feel good.)

I can understand this position. But I've noticed ever since I stopped fudging as a DM, that such cool moments still occur plenty of times. Knowing that those moments were actually earned, and not a DM's trick, makes them more cool... wouldn't you say?

 

[Aldarc]

However, at the root we're not talking about 5e, we're talking about 1e if any specific e at all; in that the original survey was done in 1983 - the heart of the 1e era.

I am not sure if I agree with this premise, as I suspect that these are separate conversations. This was fairly clear from the reactions and discussions around cheating. Many people in this thread are operating from the perspective of 5e regardless of the date of the interviews was established. The interviews reveal a bit of the player mindset to cheating in 1e, but that certainly does not mean that current reactions to the article pertain strictly to 1e.

Where I see the DM as being a somewhat different breed of animal, able to do all kinds of things within the game that players cannot. She just has to make sure she's always acting in good faith, as part of the responsibility of being a DM in the first place.

"A somewhat different breed of animal" should not equate to "a superior breed of animal," and it is the latter sense that I find more objectionable as a player and GM. And I appreciate games that incorporate more GM-Player checks-and-balances in place.

In the one aspect of stat generation, yes. In all other aspects e.g. rolls made during the run of play the cheat level would likely be around the same regardless of char-gen method.

Of course, but I was only speaking here of character generation. The point being that the dice rolls for how your effective your character may mechanically be or match your character concept create a point where cheating is more likely to occur.

 

[Gibili]

Though in fairness the players are probably going to expect the DM to create encounters, create adventures, and award experience - but they're not necessarily going to expect her to fudge the dice and may or may not react rather negatively if they find out such has been done.

Of course the DM fudges the dice in favour of the players as much as against them. Sometimes as a DM you just have to keep the damn fools from killing themselves!

I guess it depends on what sort of game is being run. If the game is about the players "winning" where the DM is much more the "enemy" of the players, then I can see that fudging is undesirable. All participants must live and die by the dice, the rules and agreed behaviours so everyone is on a level playing field. Perhaps in a tournament for example or just a game of that style. Similarly, if the players are of that nature and preference, and that game has perhaps more of wargaming feel to it rather than a narrative style, then again there is probably a much greater demand for a fixed way of doing things.

On the other hand, if the game is about "having fun" (no pejorative implications in either paragraph!) and thus less concerned about the outcomes as long as it is enjoyable and/or has much more of a narrative style, then it would be more important for the DM to do all the tweaks, including fudging dice, to maintain a high quality narrative, than stick rigidly to the dice rolls and the rules.

There is of course the grey area in between.

As along as all involved are happy with what is going on it doesn't matter what happens.