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

Tony Vargas

Legend
In 4e a player who starts a new character is expected to keep improving his/her technical play, however. (At least I think that is the default.) That is to say, s/he wouldn't be expected to emulate the lack of familiarity with the power suite, the way pacing works (especially in combat), etc that is typical of a new 4e player.
Sure. There's a lot if abstraction, though, between 4e gameplay tactics, like focus fire or flanking, and in-fiction tactical acumen, like Bait & Switch, Wolf Pack Tactics, or Tactical Presence. So you're not really breaking character or anything at that level. Focus fire isn't metagaming, for instance, just gaming.

In 4e it'd also probably be fine to act on your 'player knowledge' of a monster, too, since most of that can be out in the open, anyway. It's not like the classic game when player knowledge could be life or death.
Whereas I can easily imagine some 2nd ed AD&D tables complaining that an experienced player who uses that knowledge to play a 1st level PC effectively (eg in terms of thinking through spell load out, or combat tactics, or dungeoneering methods) is cheating or metagaming.
I've known it to happen in AD&D, 1e too, but don't think it was in the spirit that Gygax intended, rather the 'player knowledge' objection was part of the rapid shift from wargames to RPG, that had little to do with the mechanics or presentation.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
I've known it to happen in AD&D, 1e too, but don't think it was in the spirit that Gygax intended, rather the 'player knowledge' objection was part of the rapid shift from wargames to RPG, that had little to do with the mechanics or presentation.
I agree absolutely that it wasn't intended by Gygax, which is why I used 2nd ed AD&D - which formalises the shift from wargaming to "storyteller" RPGing - as my touchstone.

(The idea that it's a shift from wargaming to RPG I reject: playing D&D as a wargame is one very traditional mode of RPGing, not something that contrasts with it.)
 



Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I've seen plenty. Now, a perfectly spherical one? Of course not. A perfect sphere only exists in theory.

It was a joke, dude.

The discussion is over. He failed to prove that I am cheating, which I can't be since the rules allow me to alter die rolls. All that's left now is to joke around for a bit.
 

Aldarc

Legend
I happen not to entirely agree with [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] about this cheating issue - my view is that if there is a table consensus that the GM is allowed to make up whatever s/he wants about the shared fiction, so that the real function of dice rolls (both player and GM side) is to make "suggestions" that the GM might take on board if s/he hasn't got anything else in mind, then the GM playing in that manner is not cheating.

But the opinions that Aldarc and Hussar are presenting are not in the least arbitrary. They are honing in on the use of dice as randomisation devices, and identifying as cheating any change of the outcome that is not pursuant to some class of reasonably well-defined mechanics. There's nothing arbitrary about that - it seems to follow from a fairly common-sense way of thinking about the purpose of dice rolls, card draws and the like in games.
That seems reasonable, but this would need to be understood by all participants.
 

pemerton

Legend
That seems reasonable, but this would need to be understood by all participants.
Your post made me smile, because when we step out of the debate about what is cheating and into the actual dynamics of RPG then I find that sort of "dice rolls as suggestions" play pretty unreasonable! But my impression is that that puts me in a minority of RPGers.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Your post made me smile, because when we step out of the debate about what is cheating and into the actual dynamics of RPG then I find that sort of "dice rolls as suggestions" play pretty unreasonable! But my impression is that that puts me in a minority of RPGers.

I guess it comes down to faith in the rules governing what the dice mean, vs faith in the GM. If you grok the rules and find them worthy, abiding by the dice even when a result seems, in the moment, to be off somehow is reasonable. If you find the rules impenetrable or inadequate, such trust would be misplaced.

Of course all that's a little overblown (as is much concern for the topic), unless you are pretty deeply invested in the RPG expeeience.
 

pemerton

Legend
I guess it comes down to faith in the rules governing what the dice mean, vs faith in the GM. If you grok the rules and find them worthy, abiding by the dice even when a result seems, in the moment, to be off somehow is reasonable. If you find the rules impenetrable or inadequate, such trust would be misplaced.

Of course all that's a little overblown (as is much concern for the topic), unless you are pretty deeply invested in the RPG expeeience.
It's not about being deeply invested, or otherwise. It's that if I wanted someone to tell me a story, I'd go about it some other way than rolling dice to make suggestions as to what they should tell me.
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top