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?

 

[Aldarc]

So you want to claim the credit for attacking people for using the dictionary definition of "cheat", but decline to explain why that was reasonable, or why you didn't use yourself as an example of people arguing over the definition of English words?

While you are at, how about asking me if I'm still beating my wife?

Unfortunately combat was the only example I could quickly think of where it's usually pretty obvious who's contributing and who's not.

That's fine. So maybe it is obvious for you, but this is not always clear for me. When I look at some of my past groups, whether as a player or at the helm as the GM, then I have generally seen all players attempting to contribute to the best of their abilities. The bard in one group was a wet noodle in combat, but they were contributing.

OK, what if you're making a discovery as an individual? Using your example above, what if I discovered the Cobra Cult knocked off my brother through research I did on my own - would only I get the xp? If yes, we're good.

In the Cypher System? Probably, though the Cobra Cult example was for Fate, which uses milestones and not XP. But if your "fighters" (glaives) fought to get to that relic, the "rogue" (jack) found the relic, and then the "wizard" (nano) identified it, then who made the discovery possible? That's why Numenera favors giving XP to the group. There is a team effort to get to that point. If one player character was alone when they ventured off and then found and identified that relic, then yeah I would probably award them with an XP for that. But then I would probably then offset that by maybe throwing out GM Intrusions for other characters. But that's just a reality of players: some players are proactive while others prefer being reactive.

So, same general idea but a slower and softer advancement. Sounds good!

Yeah, and the Cypher System also contributed to my views regarding the hyperinflated numbers of XP. But it becomes easy if you want to adjust the required XP for each level. So it may take 4 XP per benefit to get from Tier 1 to 2, but you may decide for your games that it will now take 6 XP per benefit to get from Tier 2 to Tier 3. But determining what is appropriate for your games may require playing several longer campaigns to see how pacing as written would be for your table.

FYI, the guiding mechanic of the Cypher System is that the GM assigns a difficulty of 0-10 and multiplies that number by 3 to determine the Target Number. The Target Number is the number that the players have to beat on a d20 roll. So for example, if the Difficulty is 5, then the players have to roll a 15 or higher to succeed. But unlike 3e+ D&D, final resolution happens on the roll result and not after. The Cypher System is not "roll d20 + player modifiers = result". Instead the GM establishes base TN and then the player attempts to lower that difficulty with their various resources, and then they have to beat that number on a d20 roll. One of the benefits of this system is that this places greater tension on the die roll and that tension is not lost in the calculations of "I rolled a 10, plus my combined +5 strength/proficiency bonus, plus +1 bonus from my magic sword. That is a 16 total. Do I hit? [and all eyes turn to the GM]" In the Cypher System, you know your success as soon as you roll. As you can imagine, if you are facing a task/monster with a difficulty of 7+, then you are dealing with Target Numbers that are 21 to 30, which you can't reach naturally on a d20 roll. Hence the players have means to lower that Difficulty/TN.

So players have a number of tools at their disposal to lower the required Difficulty roll for them. For starters, players have skills (e.g., climbing, knowledge). If they are trained in a skill, they can lower that Difficulty by 1. And if they are specialized in a skill, they can lower that Difficulty by 2. So through skills, they can lower the Target Number from 3-6. So if a player was specialized in climbing, they could turn a Difficulty 5 task into a Difficulty 3 task. In other words, they would go from needing to roll a 15 or higher to needing to roll a 9 or higher. But players may also have assets. An "asset" is just a thing or circumstance that helps make things easier (e.g., books for knowledge, rope for climbing, shields for defense), which also can reduce the Difficulty by 1. Players also have Effort. Players can a spend points from one of their relevant ability/HP pools (Might, Speed, Intellect) to expend Effort to lower that difficulty further. Effort has a minimum point value per level of Effort you choose to apply, but players are capped by how much effort they can apply, which is determined by tier level or whether you have advanced your character with that 4 XP for the next grade of Effort. Certain abilities and powers can also lower the difficulty.

I realize that this may sound complicated, but I assure you that it is remarkably intuitive. But if you notice, the only real involvement that the DM has here in is in establishing the Difficulty/TN, which is as simple as 0-10, though the DM may also be required to provide discretion whether the players may have additional assets (e.g., the high ground in combat). Monsters are created by essentially just establishing a Difficulty. If players are facing a Difficulty 3 monster, the players have to roll 9 or higher to hit, 9 or higher to defend themselves from its attacks, and its attacks do 3 damage (from its difficulty). The GM does not roll. The rest is on the players. The players roll everything, including their defense rolls. The players are mustering their character resources for success.

And this is all a long-winded way of saying that monsters are sometimes much higher than the players' pay grade so getting around the monster becomes the puzzle between you and the discovery. To a certain degree, this system weirdly operates under - what is presumably my impression of - an Old School mentality. But you are going for discovering neat stuff to bring back and not gold. You are facing creatures and oddities you can't necessarily beat, and so you have to work around that. You are playing a game that involves the managing and attrition of player resources.

3e D&D had you use xp for magic item creation; and I'll say here as I said there: it's an awful mechanic!

Why? Because it takes xp completely out of any type of in-game rationale (they represent the accumulated memories and experience and training a character has had at the various skills/abilities/etc. of its class) and puts them completely into the metagame as a player-spendable currency.

Yeah, it's somewhat counterintuitive. And I have seen people propose some alternate mechanics or different types of pools: XP for character advancement and "XP" for PC in-narrative spending.

Er...I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure it was Derek Smalls in that scene...

Derek Smalls is the bassist. Nigel Tufnel is the lead guitarist.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you have been saying. My understanding of what you have been saying is that a rule that allows you to alter die rolls(which is another rule) is cheating. Is that correct or incorrect?

I am saying that "fudging" operates as cheating de facto though not cheating de jure. Per Law it may not be, but per Practice it fundamentally is. Hence [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s use of the phrase "institutionalized cheating." And I think that this distinction is likely causing a lot of the frustration in this discussion.

I went to Matt Colville's subreddit the other day. There was a thread there about DMs cheating/fudging, though centered around Puffin Forest's video "Should the DM Cheat in D&D?" From my sense of his fanbase, many of the players attracted to Matt Colville's game style tend to be grognards. So sticking my head in the thread for a gander, I was naturally expecting more of the same as here. But not once was I able to find there the phrase "the DM/GM can't cheat." Instead, there was a thread-wide recognition in place that on an essential level, that fudging is a mode of cheating. Some were putting a negative spin on this (e.g., "I don't cheat/fudge!) while others were not ("I cheat as a DM."). Some were talking about how cheating is sometimes necessary by the DM, but others were speaking against the practice. Even those who think that cheating is within the powers of the DM used the language of cheating as the natural language of the discourse. "Cheat/ing" was the predominate word used for this sort of "rules engagement" by the DM. Now before dismissing everyone in that thread as being "wrong" or using "incorrect terms," it's worth considering why other people outside of this forum find "cheating" the natural word choice for this discussion.

 

[pemerton]

So am I right in interpreting this to mean you believe these designers intentionally want to incent the sort of metagaming I described?

If yes, I can safely ignore their designs and ideas henceforth and not feel like I'm missing anything useful.

Well, I mostly didn't worry about the details of what you said because it doesn't reflect the actual content and operation of the Bonds mechanic - for instance, you talk about players whose PCs don't get along with others being sunk, but that would stop you having a bond like "X has insulted my deity; I do not trust them", or "X is soft, but I will make them hard like me" - just to pick one cleric and one fighter bond.

Your seeming assumption that bonds are mutual is also wrong - given that bonds are a function of class, and by default there is only one of each class in a DW party, bonds will almost always be distinctive and one-way.

But the whole point of the mechanic is to give players an incentive to focus on interpersonal relationships within the party, and to play them hard (so as to arrive at resolutions that then yield XP).

 

[Maxperson]

Er...while I pretty much agree with your general stance, Max, I think you're comparing apples and oranges on this one.

An in-game event that changes something within the game is simply part of the game. Human Lanefan casting a Fly spell on Human Maxperson who can't normally fly gets Maxie in the air, as that's how the spell works and what the spell does.

It's not about being in game or out. It's about using a rule to alter other rules. But just for the sake of argument, there were magic items and feats in 3e that allowed the player to re-roll or alter rolls when used, and 5e has feats and abilities that characters can activate to give advantage or disadvantage. Advantage/disadvantage allows you to ignore one roll in favor of a second roll. That would be cheating according to @Husssar and [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], even though it's an in-game event changing something within the game.

 

[Maxperson]

I am saying that "fudging" operates as cheating de facto though not cheating de jure. Per Law it may not be, but per Practice it fundamentally is. Hence [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s use of the phrase "institutionalized cheating." And I think that this distinction is likely causing a lot of the frustration in this discussion.

I get what you are saying, but it still boils down to the DM using one rule to alter another. You are calling it cheating for the DM to do that. There's no difference between a DM using a rule to alter die rolls(another rule) and the DM using any other rule to alter rules other than rolling. You are just arbitrarily declaring one to be cheating(de facto or otherwise) and the other not.

I went to Matt Colville's subreddit the other day. There was a thread there about DMs cheating/fudging, though centered around Puffin Forest's video "Should the DM Cheat in D&D?" From my sense of his fanbase, many of the players attracted to Matt Colville's game style tend to be grognards. So sticking my head in the thread for a gander, I was naturally expecting more of the same as here. But not once was I able to find there the phrase "the DM/GM can't cheat." Instead, there was a thread-wide recognition in place that on an essential level, that fudging is a mode of cheating. Some were putting a negative spin on this (e.g., "I don't cheat/fudge!) while others were not ("I cheat as a DM."). Some were talking about how cheating is sometimes necessary by the DM, but others were speaking against the practice. Even those who think that cheating is within the powers of the DM used the language of cheating as the natural language of the discourse. "Cheat/ing" was the predominate word used for this sort of "rules engagement" by the DM. Now before dismissing everyone in that thread as being "wrong" or using "incorrect terms," it's worth considering why other people outside of this forum find "cheating" the natural word choice for this discussion.

I just popped over and it took me about a minute to find someone saying that DMs alter dice for the benefit of the players, and players do it to cheat. That clearly indicates, even if they didn't use the phrase "the DM can't cheat," that the person only views it as cheating on the part of the player.

I found this in another thread, "It doesn't make sense to say that a DM is "cheating". Players cheat in a game, referees adjudicate."

And this thread has all kinds of people saying cheat is the wrong word. https://www.reddit.com/r/mattcolvil...ould_the_gm_cheat_in_dd_questions_for_fellow/

 

[Aldarc]

Advantage/disadvantage allows you to ignore one roll in favor of a second roll. That would be cheating according to @Husssar and [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], even though it's an in-game event changing something within the game.

Hussar can speak for himself, but if you think that this is cheating according to me, then I'm skeptical that you have been reading closely. IMHO, it would be cheating if you fudged the dice results of a check that used Advantage/Disadvantage as you are misreporting or being dishonest about the given results.

 

[Maxperson]

Hussar can speak for himself, but if you think that this is cheating according to me, then I'm skeptical that you have been reading closely. IMHO, it would be cheating if you fudged the dice results of a check that used Advantage/Disadvantage as you are misreporting or being dishonest about the given results.

It's the same logical form. Your argument can be applied to every other rule that alters anything after the fact. You've arbitrarily declared one example of "Use rule A to alter rule B after the fact" as cheating, but another example of "Use rule A to alter rule B after the fact" is not cheating.

 

[Aldarc]

I get what you are saying, but it still boils down to the DM using one rule to alter another. You are calling it cheating for the DM to do that. There's no difference between a DM using a rule to alter die rolls(another rule) and the DM using any other rule to alter rules other than rolling. You are just arbitrarily declaring one to be cheating(de facto or otherwise) and the other not.

I disagree, but these differences are likely irreconcilable.

I just popped over and it took me about a minute to find someone saying that DMs alter dice for the benefit of the players, and players do it to cheat. That clearly indicates, even if they didn't use the phrase "the DM can't cheat," that the person only views it as cheating on the part of the player.

I found this in another thread, "It doesn't make sense to say that a DM is "cheating". Players cheat in a game, referees adjudicate."

And this thread has all kinds of people saying cheat is the wrong word. https://www.reddit.com/r/mattcolvil...ould_the_gm_cheat_in_dd_questions_for_fellow/

It seems you're missing the forest for the trees here or using the presence of shrubbery to attempt disproving the presence of the forest.

It's the same logical form. Your argument can be applied to every other rule that alters anything after the fact. You've arbitrarily declared one example of "Use rule A to alter rule B after the fact" as cheating, but another example of "Use rule A to alter rule B after the fact" is not cheating.

Apples are round. Oranges are round. Therefore, apples are oranges? One should not mistake a similarity of form with a sameness of form or essence.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

In fairness, it's the other way around: "It's not a critical, wait, yes it is!"

Mechanically, yes. Psychologically no. It would be like making a T-shirt with a d20 on a 20 that says “Crit Happens*”

“*when confirmed.”

In all prior (and later) editions, a 20 is a critical. So the new rule altered the result of the roll. Generally when somebody throws a 20, that’s the big deal. I even have one of those dice that flash when you roll a 20.

Altering the result of a die after it is thrown seems to be (one of) [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s threshold for what he calls cheating. I obviously disagree.

I think it was definitely a change in the rules, and one that makes a certain amount of sense, especially when increasing the critical threat range. I like our solution better, since they usually know after a round or two what is needed to hit, they know before they roll if a 20 will be a crit. But it still takes away a bit of the fun of the natural 20.

To be fair, once you’re used to the rule, you know that the confirmation roll is the one that it exciting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

At the same level? The same wealth? The same amount of in-game character knowledge?

Replacement characters seem like an issue if there's going to be this conceit that survival is a key objective. In 1e (and, I assume the other classic versions of that period), your replacement character was freshly-rolled, new stats, 1st level. But, the 'skilled play' paradigm of the day /did/ expect you to use the knowledge you'd gained in playing that character when playing your next one (if he walked into a gelatinous cube, you'd be right for your next character to be wary of oddly dust-free corridors and floating skeletons). So in 1e, the answer would be no-no-Yes. 3e introduced the idea of starting at level, with 'level appropriate' (and, since you got to choose how you spent that wealth, it could be a bit of an advantage to build a new character), but, the idea of using accumulated 'player knowledge' had long since gone out of style as 'metagaming, so yes-yes-no (ditto 4e). 5e discarded the idea of wealth/level, entirely, in theory, a character is fine with starting gear at any point in his career, AFAIK, the attitude towards player knowledge hasn't changed, in spite of 5e harkening back to the classic game in so many other ways so successfully, so the answer there is yes-no-no.

And in the extreme case: if the rest of the party get slaughtered, suddenly the coward is now the party! She can go back to town and recruit some replacements (and probably would, once everyone else gets their new PCs rolled up); but now she's the boss. She can hand-pick who comes into what is now her party; and she-as-player can even in meta-speak announce what she'd prefer to see as replacements before anyone does any rolling, should she so desire. (and if she's really ambitious and-or lucky she can sneak back in and loot her fallen comrades before heading back to town, boosting her wealth considerably - wealth she's under no obligation to share with anyone) IME, while this turnover does happen it never happens this quickly; the deaths and replacements are one or two at a time over a series of adventures, and over the long run the coward becomes both the wealthiest (it's nearly unavoidable) and the longest-serving - meaning she's made herself the star in that most of the story continuity is going to end up going through her.

So, one of my old gaming buddies, before he went off D&D entirely (he became a GURPS fanatic), ended up 'stuck playing the cleric' one time and managed really well. First of all, he played an evil cleric, then he'd heal the party /very/ selectively, engineering things so that they'd all end up dead at convenient points in the adventure, and he could collect all the treasure, all the exp, and head out to recruit a bunch of new 1st level dupes to do it all over again...

...what you describe, and what he experienced, were, IMHO, degenerate cases of D&D play, they illustrate how badly wrong the game can go with the wrong DM, an embittered player, or even with the table just acquiring some bad habits.

it's worth considering why other people outside of this forum find "cheating" the natural word choice for this discussion.

I tend to consider this forum some pretty jaded folks (being pretty jaded, myself, and prone to projecting that), but you are talking reddit. That's prettymuch the Mos Eisley of internet discussion. Self-identifying as 'a cheater' was probably the least-edgy thing they did that morning.

 

[Kobold Boots]

So, secretly altering a die roll after the fact during the game in order to affect a different outcome is somehow not cheating?

You have a quite different definition of cheating from me. It's:

a) dishonest in nature because you are keeping the activity secret from the players
b) self-serving because you are attempting to create a specific outcome that you think is better.

In what way is this not cheating? Oh, right, it's not cheating because it's allowed by the rules which have been changed over the years to rebrand cheating as "fudging".

Ok.

The rules have never been changed over the years. Go back a few pages and you'll find my quotation from 1st edition. There was a brief omission of what was to become rule 0 in 3.0 that was re added and clarified with 3.5.

No matter how many times you try to continue an argument that supports your point of view, your premise is factually incorrect from a rules perspective. You're mistaking changes in language and slang for reality.

Thank you,
KB