The Forge Archives

Hi all,

Matt Gwinn's thread on Cheating and GNS triggered some thoughts for me about why I occasionally change dice in a game.

As Matt's thread has wandered into a discussion of what is cheating and when is it wrong, I thought I'd start a new thread focused on what I thought was an interesting question.

Specifially, I want to restrict discussion to the phenomenon of players changing dice results (or mis-adding modifiers, etc.).  

When have you (as player not GM) done it and why?  What were contributing details - game system, group culture, expectations, a tournement at stake, a defining moment for your character?

Good question.

Lets see, two primary different sets of circumstances for me, when I cheated.

First:  RPGA Living City Campaigns.  I cheated like a bastard in these.  Why?  
1)  Cheating was rife (I assume still is).   Magic items were on certificates that were routinely forged.  XP awards were routinely Forged.   Cheating on a die roll to get a legitimate certificate was essentially an easier alternative to being honest with the die roll, failing, and then forging the certificate.

2) Living City was set up with lots of gimmicks that only the "elite" would benefit from.  Invitation only parties where certificates for the really cool stuff was traded and auctioned.  Scenarios where you only got the "cool stuff" if you knew the gimmick and the "top echelon" were all tipped off about what the gimmick was so they'd get them.  Cheating was the only way for the casual Living City gamer to even hope to maintain character parity.


Second:  Part of my life long hatred of the whiff factor.  I have cheated in games to avoid die roll based deprotaginization.  This was in an environment where in game discussion about events with other players and the GM was unheard of, where there was a very clear sense of competition ("you screwed up, sucks to be you") and the system was very whiff prone (AD&D2e non weapon proficiencies, BRP skills, etc).


Today I've long since stopped even thinking about participating in Living City, and for the most part endeavor to find systems less prone to whiffage and environments more prone to cooperative mutually empowering play.

I 'misread' rolls in one of my favorite games, Mage: the Ascension.  As a player.  It was a big dose of the whiff factor-- I'm supposed to be that cool and I fail continuously?!

  So I adjusted the rules before the next game of it that I ran; 1s stopped cancelling successes, wrote out a clear sheet of 'a one in this is like ___ experience' (which contradicted the somewhat jokey tone the rulebook had for many of the low skills), etc. Autosuccesses in narrow specializations.

  Sure, there were still failures, and an occassional botch.  But very rarely in a character's strong suit.  Less whiffing- it seemed to make a big difference.  [But I was back on the other side of the screen, so it could all be ego, I suppose.]

Scott

I've fudged rolls only while in the GM chair, and it frustrated me that I felt the need to do it. It's mostly happened with systems where the die roll carried too much weight as the decision maker, or I at least perceived it as such.

Also, I did it in a Fudge-based game I ran, as I hadn't got the hang of Fudge, and I was getting unpredictable results at every turn.

Hi Alan,

Cool approach to this issue. I'm glad you found the right phrasing.  I couldn't figure it out on the other thread.

And to put Alan's elegent phrasing right before everyone, please remember the title is "Changing Dice Results" (and Modifiers).  Therefore there's no need for labels of "cheating," "fudging" or whatnot.  These judgements don't help answer Alan's question.  When did you change the results, what were the circumstances, and why.

It's my belief that by removing the judgements and looking at the when and why, something interesting might be revealed.  And I actually think it will have something to do with GNS.

So...

I used to cheat during really long battles in AD&D.  If I was forty minutes into rolling a d20 sometimes I would just "snap" and think, "Dear God, what are we doing, we know we're going to wear this thing down eventually, why are we going through these damned motions making pretend that each one matters."

I'd give myself a hit on the beast just to get the fight over with sooner.  In these particular games a weren't a lot of tactics flying around.  It really was you-hit-I-hit.

I have done this about three times.

I think I once cheated on a Saving Throw as well.  There was this sense of, "That's it?  Get struck with a poison dart, make one lousy random roll to see if I live or die?  My guy's a hero!  WTF!  No way!"

Christopher

I've been gaming since I was 13, and I've given in to the occasional "misreported" die roll, although I've done so less and less over the years.  The motivation usally boiled down to either:

a) a favorite character in extreme peril, i.e, don't make this die roll and you'll be reaching for a new character sheet...

or

b) frustration after a long series of whiffs.  In a game of Traveller I once rolled snake-eyes 5 consecutive times on 2d6.

So yeah, I'd say the usual motivator for me was deprotaginization, either in the extreme (no more protaganist) or simply the fustration of being ineffective.

I also have some experience in gaming in groups where cheating is rampant.  In my late teens, my usual gaming group included some guys who would rarely report rolling anything below 98 on a pair of percentiles, and while I never was quite so blatant about it myself, it does create a degree of frustration when such behavior is tolerated that leads to those members of the group who would normally be honest to begin fudging rolls themselves.

An interesting thing I wish to point out is that it is easier for a player to adjust his result if the GM just asks if you succeed or not.  I've never actually made up a number, but I have told the GM that I succeeded.  Only did it a few times and it was mostly an urge not to make my character suck.

-Joshua

I can't say I've ever misreported a number as a player.

Basically this is due to 1) the relative lack of chances to play and 2) a penchant for rules-lawyering when I really want something.  I guess the rules-lawyering falls into the category of misreporting modifiers, so I'm probably guilty there.  

My reasons have been varied.  At the core, it's probably a personality thing (I like to be the expert, which is why GMing suits me just fine).  There were a few occasions where I did it to save a beloved character, and a few times where I felt like the GM was being a dick and I just wanted to be done with whatever he was making me do.

I did discover a way to "cheat" with the true d100 die, where you could roll it along its equator to essentially guarantee numbers between 30 and 70.  I can't actually say why I did it except just to see if it worked.  I stopped using the die to remove the temptation.

In my case, I haven't tended to change die rolls for my PC to survive or win.  I think somehow games I have been in have either been ones where it was fun to die (CoC and Paranoia, or any one-shot game), or ones where there was some degree of script immunity (usually that the PC had to do something actively stupid to get killed).  

I think I have changed die rolls more to liven things up.  This might mean that I claim a good roll when I try an unusual maneuver.  However, I also have sometimes claimed a worse roll than what I actually rolled -- such as a critical failure.  Am I alone in this?  This partly may have come out of a desire for balance: i.e. I should have low rolls to match the rolls I changed to high.  But it also came I think from thinking that failure would be interesting at that point.  

Overall, though, I find it hard to remember what I did.  I definitely think I used to change rolls more than I do in present times.  

One specific thing that has always annoyed me is percentile dice, in which I find it is very common to switch the "ones" and the "tens" die, if they are distinguished by color.  In my own game I have made sure to supply a bunch of clearly-marked "00" to "90" dice.  I'm not sure why I particularly dislike this, given that I am not concerned over die roll changing otherwise.  I think it could be that I find it distracting, in that it requires minor but active effort to get the true roll.

Quote from: John Kim
I think I have changed die rolls more to liven things up.  This might mean that I claim a good roll when I try an unusual maneuver.  However, I also have sometimes claimed a worse roll than what I actually rolled -- such as a critical failure.

Hi John,

What do you mean "liven things up"?  For whom?

Also what game system(s) did you do this in, and which did you choose to crit in?

This goes for otehr posters too - which systems did your reported events happen in?

Annoying occasional poster here.

I've cheated (my term for what I did, so no judgments here on anyone else) a few times - I wouldn't call it 'regularly' but perhaps... 'predictably'.

Usually, as the other posters, its (I hope this is the right understanding of this term) the whiffing, or neutralizing non-productive results, such as doing good rping, good planning, good aiding of the story, then having a crappy roll which is just generally disappointing, for the story overall, not necessarily just my character - I'll read it as *slightly* less bad if possible (moving a critical failure down to a failure), but from there, I'll use... "player fiat" for lack of a better word, staying within the social contract (in my eyes) to make an outcome more conducive to whatever the issue at hand is. As others, also, if the ref asks, I'll just say 'yah, I succeeded' if I feel it would have been close enough - usually, if its a VERY bad failure though, I don't call it a success.

And yes, numerous times I have fudged it the OTHER way, so I DO fail, sometimes spectacularly, sometimes with other players' wellfare depending on me, if I felt the outcome would be funny or interesting or somehow really add an oomph to the story.

Now, if its wacky or a weird, even bad thing, I'll let it go too and NOT fudge it - it all depends on the situation. Like I had a character, we were in the middle of a battle with Orcs and Goblins, I had my whip (yes), my sword, I was on the coach trying to rein in the horses. I swing at a goblin and absolutely fumbled, fell off the wagon, failed ALL my luck, dexterity and ref-feels-sorry-for-you rolls, took 11(!) on 2D6 damage roll, doing TWICE my entire health, knocking me out and causing a bleeding wound. Heh. Not heroic but hilarious to envision, and helped me decide on an Owen Wilson type personality of the skilled yet bumbling unrealized hero.

Just a reminder that I'd also like to know the _system_ your story occured in.  And why you did it - espeically when you choose to fail.

here's a little story that Alan may find interesting... and Ron, too, since he was recently surprised when someone mentioned a GM who fudged dice rolls without keeping it a secret.

twenty-some years ago, I and my friends played D&D and The Fantasy Trip. when we played TFT, I GMed, and I don't remember any changing die rolls or any players changing die rolls. however, I and two of my friends each ran D&D campaigns, and each of us, while acting as GM, would reroll particularly bad rolls. there was no real rule of when we rerolled, since it wasn't always for dramatic effect or to prevent a whiff. sometimes, we'd reroll high damage rolls when the PC victim was already near death.

the players didn't always get to see the die roll, but everyone knew what was going on, because the GM's reroll was usually accompanied by shouting at the dice, either saying "bah!" or "OH COME ON!". I remember in some cases where the dice were particularly stubborn and a GM would reroll four or five times.

thinking back on this, I'm wondering why I don't remember doing this in TFT. I think it's because D&D has a linear die roll while TFT has a curve.

Quote from: AlanJust a reminder that I'd also like to know the _system_ your story occured in.  And why you did it - espeically when you choose to fail.

In my case, various Palladium games and WFRP for the most part, but they're the ones I played most.  Rules-lawyering seemed to be particularly effective in Palladium, perhaps because we were using a mishmash of Robotech, TMNT and Beyond the Supernatural (each with all of their supplements).  Basically, we invented Rifts long before they published it.

I didn't include the systems, though, because I don't think they're part of why or what I did, exactly.  I think I'd have been equally prone to "cheating" in any other system.

I guess this thread is starting to drift.  The original question was:

When have you (as player not GM) changed dice rolls (misreported modifiers or success/failure) and why? What were contributing details - game system, group culture, expectations, a tournement at stake, a defining moment for your character?:

From looking at the responses to date, I'd suggest that most appear to be motivated by a range of feelings:

REBELLION at unequal power distribution
- Corrupt environment & unequal distribution of "cool stuff" - RPGA Living City (Ralph)

Fear of player SHAMING rituals
- Player competitiveness ("Sucks to be you") - AD&D2e (Ralph)

FRUSTRATION of player effort
- Dice neutralized player preparation - no system mentioned
(Dr. Velocity)
- After a long series of failures - Traveller (Wilhelm)

BETRAYAL of Player Vision of Character
- "I'm supposed to be cool and I fail all the time?"  - Mage: the Ascension (Scott)
- " ... one lousy random roll to see if I live or die? My guy's a hero! WTF! No way!" - AD&D (Christopher)
- also mentioned as secondary reason in one or two other responses

BETRAYAL of Player's desire for Influence
- I suspect this is also an underlying reason, but it hasn't been mentioned explicitly.

BOREDOM
- To liven things up - both success and fumbles - no system mentioned  (John)
- Frustration with a long and repetitiive Conflict - AD&D (Christopher)

HUMOR
- Humor - choosing to fail - no system mentioned (Dr. Velocity)


Betrayal of Vision and Betrayal of Influence are two tightly bound categories.  Would it be useful to separate them?  Are they always bound up?  Are all acts of changing results attempts to increase influence?

Also, I'd really like to hear more from John, Dr. Velosity, and others on choosing to fail.  Why'd you do it? Can you give an example?  In what system?  What else was going on?

My own experience:

I've rarely changed rolls as a player, but here's two examples:

In Fantasy Hero, I described a very cool action for my character, then rolled a failure.  I knocked one of the dice higher.  

In D&D3e, sitting beside a player who cheated, I reported one or two fumbles as failures, and one failure as a success.  He was the alpha player in the group - you know, the one with the most effective character, most influence in game and out.  I was jealous and frustrated cuz no one was recognizing the cool details I'd added to my character and the little bits of role-play I used to bring them out.

(As an aside, his technique was to roll the d20 several times while waiting for his turn, then when he got a good result, he'd slap a neighbor on the shoulder so they could witness it.  The result then got used on his turn.  Sitting next to him, I probably cheated more in one year than in my whole 20 years of gaming.)

So my own reasons for changing dice rolls probably fall into betrayal of player visions, and betrayal of player effectiveness, along with competition for player recognition.

Quote from: Alan

Quote from: John KimI think I have changed die rolls more to liven things up.  This might mean that I claim a good roll when I try an unusual maneuver.  However, I also have sometimes claimed a worse roll than what I actually rolled -- such as a critical failure.

What do you mean "liven things up"?  For whom?

Also what game system(s) did you do this in, and which did you choose to crit in?

I would judge "liven things up" based on my own tastes, though I think that there is generally overlap with other players.  I guess I have more tendency to do this in bell-curve or flat-linear systems, and less so in systems with a lot of open-endedness and critical results.  Basically, there have been times when play degenerates into a series of die rolls with medium results, or alternating results (i.e. success/failure/success/...).  It can liven things up to have a string of successes/failures, or an extraordinary failure/success.  One exception: for perception rolls a success is almost always more interesting.  

As I said before, I find I don't remember particular examples of die roll changing or even particular patterns -- so take the above with a grain of salt.  It has certainly always been infrequent and usually minor.  I remember there was a Call of Cthulhu convention game where I hardened against distinguish-by-color percentile dice.  I used it myself a bit during the game to change rolls, but I found it distracting and annoying.  My character was a nosy reporter, and I think I changed die rolls to find some things out but also cause trouble early in the adventure -- and changed one in the end to have a spectacular death.

Quote(As an aside, his technique was to roll the d20 several times while waiting for his turn, then when he got a good result, he'd slap a neighbor on the shoulder so they could witness it. The result then got used on his turn. Sitting next to him, I probably cheated more in one year than in my whole 20 years of gaming.)

Wow, I know someone who is just like this.  He even uses the same technique.  Another technique he uses is he'll have multiple d20s in his hand and roll them all at once, never telling us which one he's using.  I presume he does it because he is kind of like the 'cool guy' the 'top dog' amongst our circle of friends (I'm the secretly cool dog who manipulates things secretly :-)).  So he kind of does it to make sure his character is superior.

-Joshua

Although detail is good, I think you may be OVERLY dividing things, such as the Betrayal/Failure of Player Influence/Vision/Effort; I think these could all really be more or less the same thing - I mean, the fine detail is different but in effect, the gist is that the dice are outright nullifying (almost seemingly to SPITE them) something that the players feel *should* occur, or be invioble (I always look good when I ride a horse, I always am able to effectively charm the townsfolk, I planned everything out AND I role-played like a house afire) - the reasoning in these cases can still be summed up, if you asked someone right at that time why they 'misread' a roll instead of going with the outcome, the average answer would boil down to 'because that would have been STUPID'.

I think its not so much the human touch, even, that people seem the need to fudge back INTO the totally cold system, its really more more of a generally agreed upon cooperative aesthetic contract, to keep the game from producing counter-productive or just overall unworkable or displeasing results. If it doesn't do ANYTHING for the story, either to move it along or to present something interesting (drama, comedy, new but reasonable obstacle), then screw that. The referee AND the players have enough of a cooperative and vested interest in the game that no one wants to see the following (which I remember):

Five Warhammer FRP characters climbing a steep mountain. I think ONE of us had any sort of related skill to perform this feat.

*roll* AH SHI... I fumbled.

Okay, roll dex.

*roll* FOR THE LOVE OF... I fumbled.

Okay, luck.

*roll* I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS!

Fumbled?

*nod*

I believe it was like the 2nd guy in line of the big rope array we all had, to keep each other from falling. This guy, good high stats, lots of physical skills, nonetheless, rolled natural 96 or better, three times in a row. He was close enough to the lead climber, who had some skill at climbing, and ahead of everyone else, to cause a mass catastrophe - rolls for everyone else; almost everyone failed or fumbled at least once, most twice, including the lead climber - it was enough that the number of good rolls were not good ENOUGH to outweigh the bad ones by any stretch.

In reality, with as many bad rolls as there were from EVERYONE, overlaying standard understanding of failure and fumbled rolls, the entire party basically, objectively, should have tumbled down the mountain and plummeted to their deaths. But who the HELL wants that? The referee worked WAY too hard and we had ALL played this scenario way too long, for the band of burgeoning heroes to meet their end thanks to a simple time-wasting challenge not even important to the story. If one or even two of us had bought the farm, I think that would have been ok probably, everyone would have been miffed but accepted it as adding detail and grit and allowing the other characters to remember, sadly, back at home. "And that fateful day, on Mount Boogledyboomboom... Granaraph missed his handhold..."

I don't recall exactly what happened, I think the ref sort of winked and asked for 'last ditch effort rolls' or something, or let Priests make Divine Intervention rolls, something - it was grasping-at-straws-and-by-god-don't-tell-me-you-didn't-make-it time and while some of us tried to keep the balance by still faithfully admitting failed rolls, possibly at the expense of our characters, most of the rolls succeeded or critically succeeded - some authentically, some by 'player fiat'. I think there was some sort of geas and also Fate Point debt or something over the whole thing, just so we didn't feel like we ALL had just shamelessly cheated WITH the referee's help. Amusingly, as soon as we all made our rolls, the ref decided the top was a LOT closer than anyone originally thought.

On the subject of cheating to FAIL rolls, usually, since I played very little of anything else, it would all be Call of Cthulhu Original 4th Edition or Warhammer FRP, with a smidge of Paranoia, Shadowrun, Hero, Traveller and Runequest. Specific situations don't always stick out in my mind because the cheating helped create a more smooth, seamless blending of parts of the game, and the results and outcome overshadows the cheating, in memory.

I was playing a ... Newtling or some gecko thing in RQ, and we encountered some wild fire-breathing lizard thing - not overtly hostile but not a domestic puppy dog. Taking into account my Newtling's naivete, kinship with other reptiles and basic obliviousness to danger, I repeatedly fought off the players' and ref's attempts to get me to NOT try to pet the lizard. Then, when it predictably bit me, I fudged by dodge roll, fudged the hit location roll, AND fudged the damage roll, so I entirely lost my left hand, instead of taking like 4 points to the abdomen. It was funny, sort of gritty, gave the other players a fight, let the priest give some of his skills some use, kept the players on their toes in future encounters since they had to be wary of what I was going to blunder into, plus I got to develop some odd mentality and I think I got a nickname out of the deal.

I guess while there are a lot of considerations, I will intentionally FAIL at something if it will be funny yet still fitting (or NOT fitting if its really weird), whether it involves my character or not. I did, however, in Warhammer, and also in CoC, fail my survival and/or sanity rolls - CoC, I wanted a more quirky, more interesting unpredictable character, so I decided to go insane; one too many times and the referee got a new NPC - Warhammer, I decided that my halfling pit-fighter had run his course and was world-weary and went out the way he wanted, in battle. The other guy that was playing at that time was bummed because our two characters always fought side-by-side, his lanky human Outlaw and my Halfling Pit Fighter. He even joined a cult and made a deal with a necromancer and everything to bring me back to life (fully, not zombie-fied), but from then on I decreed my halfling would just sit at the Inn he bought and be a bitter old man who had seen his own death and the tunnel of light, and had been pulled back by a well-meaning but clueless friend.

Lastly, I also would add that besides dissatisfaction or frustration at just unworkable outcomes, I admit I've just outright cheated, sometimes "just because" - still there's usually a reason - the linear combat (roll to hit, do damage) idea on things that really weren't going to pose a problem, mentioned by someone else, is probably the most common - it seems people cheat in combat, not so much to save their own character, but really to just speed up the game to get past 'the slow parts', like the ubiquitous 'group of 6 goblins' - you know, not a threat, yet crazy enough to attack and chase us if we ran.

Quote from: Dr. VelocityAlthough detail is good, I think you may be OVERLY dividing things, such as the Betrayal/Failure of Player Influence/Vision/Effort; I think these could all really be more or less the same thing - I mean, the fine detail is different but in effect, the gist is that the dice are outright nullifying (almost seemingly to SPITE them) something that the players feel *should* occur,

This survey grew out of a question about whether changing dice rolls had any relation to GNS theory.  As GNS theory is about the player's internal motivation for making a decision, we need to determine what the internal motive was, not the external result.

Quote from: AlanI guess this thread is starting to drift.  The original question was:

When have you (as player not GM) changed dice rolls (misreported modifiers or success/failure) and why? What were contributing details - game system, group culture, expectations, a tournement at stake, a defining moment for your character?

to clarify my previous post: although it was the GM's decision to reroll, he also had the players reroll bad rolls. there were no GNS issues involved: we just didn't like bad rolls at the worst possible times.

I'm intrigued by the phenomenon mentioned in several posts regarding the socially dominant player who "cheats" in some fairly obvious way, that I'm sure that everybody at the table is well aware of, but whose behavior is tacitly accepted and ignored because of their status within the play group.  I find it interesting because it seems to be a mechanism whereby a larger degree of real life influence is translated into increased character influence.

Just an observation.

Quote from: talysmanto clarify my previous post: although it was the GM's decision to reroll, he also had the players reroll bad rolls. there were no GNS issues involved: we just didn't like bad rolls at the worst possible times.

So the GM decided whether a player got a reroll?  Why did the GM in your example choose to reroll damage that would have killed the character?

Rafial: I've only encountered one alpha gamer.  I wonder if they aren't more common in environments like RPGA - he was an RPGA member.

Quote from: Alan

Quote from: talysmanto clarify my previous post: although it was the GM's decision to reroll, he also had the players reroll bad rolls. there were no GNS issues involved: we just didn't like bad rolls at the worst possible times.

So the GM decided whether a player got a reroll?  Why did the GM in your example choose to reroll damage that would have killed the character?

I'll phrase it a little differently to help make it clearer: players didn't reroll without the GM approval; they sometimes said "this is a bad roll, can I do it again?" and sometimes the GM didn't wait for them to ask.

also, to reiterate: we're talking about original D&D and AD&D1e, with groups of 4-8 players at a time, and three members of the group each occasionally acting as GM.

I can't really answer the question "why did the GM choose to reroll damage that would have killed the character?" even though I was one of the three GMs. we just didn't go for a kill, at least not if there wasn't any resurrection magic handy. in some cases, we allowed the roll to stand, but retroactively changed the victim: "ok, that attack was really on one of the henchmen, who is now dead."

Quote from: rafialI'm intrigued by the phenomenon mentioned in several posts regarding the socially dominant player who "cheats" in some fairly obvious way, that I'm sure that everybody at the table is well aware of, but whose behavior is tacitly accepted and ignored because of their status within the play group.  I find it interesting because it seems to be a mechanism whereby a larger degree of real life influence is translated into increased character influence.

Just an observation.

I've actually never encountered anything like that. Alan's description of it stunned me.

I held a year long campaign of the SWd20RPG that went extreemely well for having about 7 players and being the first time roleplaying for all of us.

In one game, one of the characters was on top of a roof on Coruscant (the city-planet). He was fighting off some baddies, and the rest of the team was fighting below. He finished off his group, and instead of running down the stairs to his friends below, he decided to jump off the building and swing into the glass window below. As most of you know from ep1 and ep2, the buildings are miles high. One failed roll, and he would have fallen for quite some time. He rolled, and succeded, smashing into the window and taking out the rest of the baddies. Thinking back, I think he may have modified the roll, but none of us cared. It was awesome.

Another time, when I was playing, we were again on Coruscant, and fighting in a high-class night club high above the city. My character was grappling with a bounty hunter, and I fudged the roll as the bounty hunter and me were thrown out the window. I made sure I failed it, to give my character a heroic death. This was years before Aragorn was thrown over the cliff with the Warg in The Two Towers, but it was the same effect. My character was dead, but he died well. That is the only time I've fudged a roll in my Player experience (which isn't too often, since I'm the GM usually).

Mark

I have a question for Mark regarding the SWd20 game post above. I have never played it, so I don't know what the rules say.

In example 1, did failure have to mean that the character fell? Could you have interpreted failure instead as the character slipping on the rope and flying through the window off balance, losing initiative or getting a round of surprise against him?

I'm specifically wondering if the rules say that something like what I describe would be considered a poor description of failure.

In the SWd20, the failure would have resulted in him falling. He used no rope (which would have helped), But he may have had the opportunity for one more roll (maybe).

One aspect of misrepresenting die rolls that hasn't come up is during character creation.  I believe the only time I've ever "cheated" on rolls has been during random character creation like D&D to ensure that the character would be fun to play.

Frequently this is done fully with GM approval, but not always.  I think it probably comes up in most groups using systems like D&D.

Re: sactioned cheating by "alpha players"

Quote from: Matt Wilson
I've actually never encountered anything like that. Alan's description of it stunned me.

I just recently read Shared Fantasy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226249441/103-3747093-9272630) by Gary Alan Fine, which was written back in the early 80s, and he mentions this phenomenon in several of the play groups he studied.  It was interesting to see that something similar persists to this day.

Thinking about my own experience, I do see something similar. The players I described who consistantly misreported their die rolls (I'm thinking about a particular Rolemaster campaign here, but they did this in other games) were not particularly sanctioned by the GM for this behavior, and in retrospect I believe this was done because the players in question were not particularly committed to the game, and the GM was afraid of losing his players if he didn't let them do this.

Quite some years back, in I think maybe an Ars Magica campaign, I did more or less what John is describing: I rolled 2 10-siders for a percentile, got a result I hated, and then claimed that the 10 and 1 die were reversed.  Thus 0 - 7 (=7) becamse 7 - 0 (=70).  Why?  I didn't want to fail, because I thought what I was doing was cool.  Why, at a deeper level?  Immaturity.  I cheated, frankly.  Looking back on that, it still bugs me that I did it.

Beyond this, I suppose it could be argued that I thought cool things should happen because they're cool, not because the dice allow them.  But I think that lets me off easy.  I have seen exactly what Alan describes, in another game -- the person who keeps rolling until he gets a good roll, then waits until his next turn to reveal this wonderful roll.  I find this despicable.

As to the run of luck thing, we all know it happens.  And if it happens a hell of a lot in a single game, it can really tick you off.  But it seems to me that the trick is to have a game and a group that has means of parlaying failure into fun.  If the situation is such that failure is just plain failure, you're asking for cheating (my choice of words).

A side note: I teach college classes that have papers assigned, and plagiarism is pretty rife.  Downloading papers has become a big problem.  Now a big study was apparently done, and it turns out that the vast majority of such cheating happens in the following condition: the professor has made clear that late papers will not be accepted, i.e. turn in the paper on time or get an F.  In that situation, lots of students don't see that cheating is a bad risk, as against getting an F anyway because they are swamped with work or have writer's block or were just partying too much and are now out of time.  Based on this structure, I do think that a game and a group that sees bad rolls as failures naturally encourages cheating.  If failures lead to a different kind of fun (as with the Concession mechanic proposed by lumpley in Chalk Outlines and borrowed for my own Shadows in the Fog), then anyone who cheats rather than fail is a weenie, and you don't have to agonize about it.

Chris

That luck sink factor could be  a good reason for a mechanic that adds a bunch of bonuses after three failed rolls in a row.

Quote from: clehrichWhy?  I didn't want to fail, because I thought what I was doing was cool.  Why, at a deeper level?  Immaturity.  I cheated, frankly.  Looking back on that, it still bugs me that I did it.  

Dude, Chris, you need to chill out.  It was just a game.  :-)  But seriously, knowing you a little, it occurs to me that attitudes on die-roll-changing are probably rooted into general attitudes towards rules, authority, or something like that.  I know that I tend to react badly to authority, for example.  

It reminds me of a parallel in two volleyball leagues at Fermilab.  I was in the summer league, who were the casual players.  We were generally louder, more disorganized, less skilled, and we cheated.  We also had a lot of fun.  The winter league were the more serious players and they generally couldn't stand to play with us.  Of course, they had a lot of fun too.  I suppose you could say we were less mature (especially since we allowed kids to play, which the winter league didn't).  If we had to play together, I think the only thing to do would be some compromise on both sides.  

Quote from: clehrichBased on this structure, I do think that a game and a group that sees bad rolls as failures naturally encourages cheating.  If failures lead to a different kind of fun (as with the Concession mechanic proposed by lumpley in Chalk Outlines and borrowed for my own Shadows in the Fog), then anyone who cheats rather than fail is a weenie, and you don't have to agonize about it.  

Hmm.  I like the idea of these rules, but I retain some skepticism.  If a player is changing rolls for the better, then I would take that as a sign that you haven't removed the stigma of failure from the roll.  Conversely, if failures are really just as fun, then presumably you'll have weenies like me changing their rolls into failures.  :-)