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?

 

[Gibili]

"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.

Yes, the DM isn't the player's enemy. The DM's NPC might well be the player's charater's enemy. That's a huge distinction. Things work best when all participants are working together. It is very much an ensemble piece. The DM doesn't "win" by killing off the players. The DM wins if he/she, and the players agree that it was jolly good fun.

 

[Gibili]

Talking of character generation, how do people feel about players who like to "work the rules", looking for synergies or even holes in allowable options in order to maximise benefits, min/max stats etc to create a heavily optimised builds, as opposed to coming up with a character concept and then using the creation rules to flesh that out?

Is this a form of cheating? Are players trying to gain an advantage? Are they stretching the spirit of the game?

In my mind I don't like the idea of it, which is probably because the games my group play are much more biased towards a good story and adventure and thankfully no one does this. Online, I have seen many discussions around "optimal builds for.....". I guess in a more competitive style of game it is fine?

 

[Imaculata]

Talking of character generation, how do people feel about players who like to "work the rules", looking for synergies or even holes in allowable options in order to maximise benefits, min/max stats etc to create a heavily optimised builds, as opposed to coming up with a character concept and then using the creation rules to flesh that out?

I have no problem with it, and that's coming from someone who plays 3.5 (where synergies and prestige classes can easily make a character overpowered and unbalanced).

I know my players care about game balance too, so if a combination is too powerful, they'll often be the first to bring it up. We discuss if it will be a problem, and whether we should disallow it.

 

[Gibili]

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?

Yes and no.
Yes I agree that cool moments do occur naturally. If they didn't we should stop having a random element to the game. There is a lot of excitement in rolling them bones in a high pressure situation, terrified of what the result may be.
If not sure I agree that those moments are better if they were earned. If the DM does what the DM needs to do to put the players in a situation to have cool moments, than that is fine by me. I think it comes down to how subtly the DM is fudging things and what things the DM is fudging. If it is obvious, or even suspicious, then yeah, it does cheapen the outcome. If the DM fudged it to get you into an exciting situation then no.

However as I wrote previously, I think we all feel that fudging, in any form, is not something that the DM should be doing a lot of. If you are doing this often as a DM then you heavily misjudged your encounters, the players etc and are having to desperately compensate. Never a good situation.

 

[Gibili]

I have no problem with it, and that's coming from someone who plays 3.5 (where synergies and prestige classes can easily make a character overpowered and unbalanced).

I know my players care about game balance too, so if a combination is too powerful, they'll often be the first to bring it up. We discuss if it will be a problem, and whether we should disallow it.

I guess that's the key caveat, if your players care about balance then it doesn't matter. I have a bit of an OP character in one game because the dice rolls I had to use on the abilities were somewhat high, as opposed to it being a "build". I discussed it with the DM and he was fine with it. I was happy to re-roll. However I did say I would play the character in such a way as to balance out the OPness. The character is pretty aloof. He only gets involved when it is of personal interest to him, and thus I don't dominate all situations. It is actually quite fun to play it this way because the other players know my character is particularly powerful and will sometimes ask him to bail them out of the stupid situations they've got themselves into...but I won't

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You are correct that the reactions in this thread are not strictly 1e, but neither are they strictly 5e like some of your responses to me imply. When it comes to the veracity of the highly flawed survey, that is strictly 1e since that's what the survey had to deal with. With regard to fudging and cheating in general, though, that spans the entirety of D&D.

"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.

Then you have picked a very poor RPG for your needs. D&D does make the DM a "superior breed of animal." The power, authority and scope of his role is far greater than all the players combined. That's why it's so important that he take care to avoid abusing that power.

 

[Maxperson]

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 don't. If the PCs are in hot water due to foolish acts, I'm going to let them boil to death if that's where the choices and dice take them. I'll only fudge things to help keep them alive if the dice gods have decreed great fortune to me and ill fortune to them at the same time. The PCs shouldn't die purely to bad luck with die rolls when the players have done nothing wrong. In those rare instances, I'll downgrade some crits and miss a bit more to even things up a bit. The PCs may still lose and die, but they will have had a fighting chance

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.

This. Which means that even when the dice are fudged against the PCs, they are still being fudged in favor of the players. I never fudge things in favor of myself.

 

[Maxperson]

Talking of character generation, how do people feel about players who like to "work the rules", looking for synergies or even holes in allowable options in order to maximise benefits, min/max stats etc to create a heavily optimised builds, as opposed to coming up with a character concept and then using the creation rules to flesh that out?

Is this a form of cheating? Are players trying to gain an advantage? Are they stretching the spirit of the game?

In my mind I don't like the idea of it, which is probably because the games my group play are much more biased towards a good story and adventure and thankfully no one does this. Online, I have seen many discussions around "optimal builds for.....". I guess in a more competitive style of game it is fine?

There's nothing wrong with a player power gaming if the group is into that sort of thing. Issues arise when 1 or 2 players power game and the others don't. That mix can(not necessarily will) cause negative feelings among the players.

 

[Kobold Boots]

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?

No.

I can understand your position, but since my primary enjoyment of D&D comes from seeing everyone happy after spending a day at my table, I don't care about how that happens personally or find anything better from "random cool" as opposed to "fabricated cool".

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.

Thanks,
KB

 

[Imaculata]

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.

That's not the only reason we have a DM.