Cheaters & GNS

[Matt Gwinn]

This may also fit into theory.

I was wondering where cheating fits into GNS.  What style of play encourages or facilitates fudging die rolls, changing stats, etc.?  I suspect  it is more prevalent for players with gamist play, and less prevalent for players in Narrativist play, at least from an unoficial stance.  I think it may be the other way around in some narrativist games though, where the rules encourage or have mechanics for what some might call "cheating".  

I'm also interested in what it means when a player cheats (ie. fudging die rolls, changing stats during play, etc.).  Is is solely a personality flaw, or is the player feeling deprotagonized?  Should a player ever be placed in a position where he feels he needs to cheat to have fun?  And what should a GM do if that happens?  Is there a flaw in the way the GM is running the game?

Any thoughts?

,Matt G.

[Jason Lee]

Heh, no good thoughts.
I think it has squat to do with priorities, it's just a personality flaw.
Why would a Gamist interested in the challenge want to cheat?  It'd defeat the entire purpose of play.

[C. Edwards]

Hey Matt,

Well, I would say that cheating falls outside any particular GNS mode. Cheating usually results when a player links their self-worth to the "winning" aspects of the game. IME, this always extends beyond relatively unimportant instances, such as playing a game, and into other areas of a person's life (taking tests, sharing, etc.). If the person doesn't perceive themselves as 'coming out on top' their sense of self-worth is impinged upon.

-Chris

[Wormwood]

Matt,

A while ago, I posted on a similiar subject, but can't say the response was too useful. One of the key problems with discussing cheating is that most people automatically assume it needs to be a negative activity. Hence it is either a personality flaw of the player, or a necessary application of drift. Neither is necessarilly the case.

In the context of RPG's there is a long standing cultural tendency that impicitly awards cheating. Not in big ways, but in subtle corrections to the game, allowing it to meet expectations. While you might say this is a fault of the game system, it seems to me that it's really a matter of disjunction between what is thought to be wanted, and actually desired by the player. This level of internal duplicity is a considerable factor for victim-less cheating that occurs quite frequently in RPGs. Gary Fine even mentions it in his socialological study of RPGs (Shared Fantasy). Certainly this is not to say that all forms of cheating are positive, but in many cases a small amount of it aids to the general enjoyment of all players.

Note, one interesting question is whether the design of a game should incorporate cheating, since it seems to be an inherent interest of the player. Perhaps this is the key to a larger market slice give people what they think they want, but then let them adjust the system to what they actually wanted, and if drift occurs in the process, even better.

It's a fairly deep consideration, and one that merits further investigation.

Hope this is food for thought,

   -Mendel S.

[Matt Gwinn]

I disagree with the idea that a person cheating in a game is a symptom of his lack of self worth.  There have been numerous times in a game when I've fudged a die roll where it came down to me simply being tired of rolling crappy all night, or needing a success to take the story where I envisioned it going.  I take offense in the idea that I fudged a die roll because I lacked self worth.

I actually think there are very few gamers out there that feel they "have to win" or it means they suck...at least amoung the gamers I know.

The few times I have cheated, or felt like cheating were a direct result of being deprotagonized by either the dice or the GM.  Which goes back to my question of whether or not certain styles of play encourage (or allow) cheating to progress the story in a direction the players want it to go.

GMs in nearly every style of play do it.  They reduce damage to keep characters from dieing, make puzzles simpler when the players just don't get it, and reduce the difficulty of a roll when his storyline requires a success to proceed.  My contention is that certain styles of play and certain systems allow enough lattitude for players to fudge things as well.  Narativist games like The Pool that grant players more directorial power allow players more opportunities to dictate success or failure than a game like D&D that is based almost entirely on die rolls, thus making it less necessary to fudge die rolls when things don't go your way.

In gamist games like D&D, where players are rewarded based primarily on what they roll, a player might be more inclined to cheat to make his character more power, thus coming closer to meeting the goals of the system.

,Matt G.

[Valamir]

Mendel, it seems to me you have an odd definition of cheating.

Consenual bending of the written rules to better achieve group goals is generally referred to as fudging.  GM fudging in secret to better preserve his plot is an accepted part of Illusionist play for those playing in that manner.

Cheating indicates doing things in secret that the other players don't know about with the implication is that the reason its being done in secret is because they wouldn't approve.

I can't imagine how you could put a positive spin on that.

As has already been said, however, I don't think the tendency to cheat has any GNS prediliction.  I suspect that gamist games with their emphasis on working the system provides more opportunities for a readily identified payoff from cheating, but that doesn't translate to gamist players having any higher degree of penchent for it.

One potentially interesting train of thought is whether non-gamists "trapped" in a gamist game might be more prone to cheat as a way of 1) competing effectively with people better at gamism then they are, or 2) a way of passive aggressively displaying their displeasure and lack of interest in the style of game being played.

[Wormwood]

Ralph,

Actually our definitions of cheating aren't different. It is clear to me that players who approve of a game based on their expectations of what they want from the game will not appreciate overt repairs, even those used in cheating. They want to believe that the game is what they believe they want, and they want the game to be what they actually want. The only way to achieve this is to cheat. It must be done in secret, or at least the attempt at subterfuge must be made. It's culturally acceptable to cheat, as long as the myth isn't challenged. So, I'm explicitly talking about cheating. The permissive cheating you refer to as fudging is in the rules, barring some odd-ball games that prevent GM fudging. In that case the result is GM's actually cheating by the standard definition.

I hope that helps,

  -Mendel S.

[C. Edwards]

Hey Matt,

Cheating indicates doing things in secret that the other players don't know about with the implication is that the reason its being done in secret is because they wouldn't approve.

Based on the wording and content of your initial post I assumed this was the basic definition of cheating you were using. As Ralph points out, 'fudging' and cheating are not the same thing.

Also, I didn't say that cheating is indicative of a lack of self-worth, only that 'winning' results and self-worth are linked in a relatively unhealthy manner, at least in the context of polite society. As far as cheating in a survival context, well, it's a pretty good strategy.

-Chris

[John Kim]

I'm also interested in what it means when a player cheats (ie. fudging die rolls, changing stats during play, etc.).  Is is solely a personality flaw, or is the player feeling deprotagonized?  Should a player ever be placed in a position where he feels he needs to cheat to have fun?  And what should a GM do if that happens?  Is there a flaw in the way the GM is running the game?  

Hmmm.  It seems to me that Ralph and Chris have answered this by way of definition.  i.e. Cheating is by definition bad, and players never cheat to have fun -- because if it is fun and not reprehensible, then it isn't cheating.  But I think this is just re-casting the question to be: what is the difference between secret fudging and cheating?  For example, an Illusionist GM might claim to have rolled a critical failure, to kill off a tough opponent of the PCs.  If they knew this, though, the players enjoyment would be diminished because they felt the fight was just a sham.  Is it cheating?  

Since tabletop RPGs are not generally competitive among the participants, I don't think cheating ought to have the same stigma than it would in, say, cheating at poker.  Certainly it's not something I ever worry about as a GM, nor do I feel particularly guilty if I fudge a roll as a player.

[Valamir]

The only way to achieve this is to cheat. It must be done in secret, or at least the attempt at subterfuge must be made. It's culturally acceptable to cheat, as long as the myth isn't challenged. So, I'm explicitly talking about cheating.

I'm afraid you're coming from an entirely different place than I am.  I don't think I want to be part of a culture where cheating is acceptable.  On most of the computer game forums I frequent there are regularly posters who come looking for cheat codes or instructions on how to use "trainers" which is just a euphemism for cheating.  Invariably they are roundly mocked for being "weak limp dicked little pussys who should go back to playing chutes and ladders if they can't handle a real game" to quote one recent response.

Personally, I agree.  Any chronic cheater in a game I was GMing who was caught would be dismissed in short order, their protests of making the game more enjoyable for themselves being utterly irrelevant.  Killing someone you hate might make the world more enjoyable for yourself, it certainly doesn't for the people effected.  Cheating is 100% the same thing...just different in scale.  It is pure antisocial selfish behavior where the desires of the cheater are being given extreme preference over the desires of the rest of the group.  

There is nothing you can accomplish to maintain your expectations of the game by cheating that can't be accomplished by social consensus, except the secrecy.  I don't buy for a second that the secrecy is necessary because "overt repairs" aren't appreciated.  You can't get more "overt" in the sense of breaking your own immersion, than making the concious decision to violate the game rules and social contract of your group.

Sorry.  Fudging is one thing, and its existance is either desireable or undesireable based on the social contract of the group.  Cheating is universally wrong.  I wouldn't want to play in the group where the social contract made it acceptable.

[Matt Gwinn]

I had a conversation with a friend last night about this topic.  He brought something up that I found interesting.

I can't count the number of times I had a D&D character that didn't buy rations, but never starved to death on a long trip.  Is that cheating?  At what point does ommission go from a social contract issue to cheating?  If no one asks me how many days worth of rations are on my character sheet, does that mean it doesn't matter in the eyes of the group?  Of does that simply mean the rest of the group assumes you have them and are removing them as the days pass?

Something else we discussed was different kinds of cheaters.  We came to the conclusion that there are habitual cheaters that cheat all the time; they can't help themselves.  These are the people I think most of you are thinking about.  But there are also people that cheat as a way of countering bad luck, protagonizing their characters (which wouldn't be necessary if the GM or system were doing their job), or simply cheat by ommission.

Something else we should look at is the difference between cheating in a game and real life.  If your home was struck by lightning and burned to the ground because you never bothered to get a lightning rod, that would suck.  But if you could go back in time and buy that lightning rod, would you?  And if you did, is that a character flaw?  If you were in an rpg, you would be cheating.  Also, in real life a person's success or failure at a task is based on his skill and tenacity, not a random die roll that could just as easily be a 1 as a 20.  In my opinion, cheating on a test is not the same as lieing about rolling a natural 1 at a critical moment in the game.

Ralph, do you feel that cheaters somehow diminish the amount of fun you are having when you play?  If so, why not be offended when a GM alters a die roll?  Is it really that different just because the book says so?  Isn't it just as "unfair" to the other players when the GM alters a die roll to keep "your" character alive, or up's the level of a monster because his storyline requires the monster to live longer and the rules are allowing?  And if it doesn't diminish the amount of fun you're having, and it increases the amount of fun the cheater is having, what difference does it make?  Isn't the point of the game to have fun?  Or is the point of the game to have a competition set on an even playing field?  In that case I refer back to my question of system and play style, because that sounds pretty sim to me.

I'm curious.  Do you see a difference between pocketing a dollar you found on the sidewalk and pocketing $10,000 you found on the sidewalk, if neither can be identified as belonging to someone?

I'm disappointed that no one has discussed my original notion that different styles of play and game design encourage or facilitate cheating.  Whether it is right or wrong is irrelivant.  I still contend that the likelyhood of someone cheating is much higher in a D20 or paladium system, than in a system like Sorcerer or My Life with Master.  

,Matt G.

[Alan]

How about we abandon the discussion of good or bad and look at a specific phenomenon?

Someone earlier mentioned changing a dice roll because they were tired of rolling crappy.  

Here's an interesting quote from Gary Allen Fine in "Shared Fantasy":

"However, this does not have the same effect as cheating in other games.  Lueschen defined cheating in sport as 'the act through which the manifestly or latently agreed upon conditions for winning such a contest are changed in favor of one side.  As a result the principle of equality of chance beyond differences in skill and strategy is violated' (1976:67).  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 ... helps himself, but also his party ... Thus the players have little incentive to prevent this cheating.  The few who do not cheat are relatively disadvantaged compared to the rest of the party and may be accused of having "bad luck" with the dice."

and

"Cheating is grounded in the importance and uncertainty associated with a particular dice roll, and this is consistent with Lueschen's assertion of the positive correlation between uncertainty and cheating.  One study of preadolescents found that cheating is a a compromise between the desire to compete fairly and the need for omnipotent control (Meeks 1970)"

Reading through Fine's comments, I'm struck by the fact that, in my experience, they still apply today.  Changing rolls once in a while is tacitly accepted pratice.  For myself it arises from my desire to be effective when it 's most important for my characer to live up to my vision of him.

I note that I've never been tempted to make a secret reroll in Trollbabe, though I occasionally did in D&D3e for example.  Why is that?

[Matt Gwinn]

" For example, a player who cheats in claiming that he has rolled a high number ... helps himself, but also his party ... Thus the players have little incentive to prevent this cheating. The few who do not cheat are relatively disadvantaged compared to the rest of the party and may be accused of having "bad luck" with the dice."

This is where the difference between casual and habitual cheaters comes in.  A habitual cheater will push the balance so far in his favor that he basicly makes everyone else ineffectual in comparison and thus less protagonized.

Changing rolls once in a while is tacitly accepted pratice. For myself it arises from my desire to be effective when it 's most important for my character to live up to my vision of him.

Hah, finally, I'm not alone in here!  Now I don't feal like such a scumbag (though I'm pretty sure Ralph will never let me game with him again).

I note that I've never been tempted to make a secret reroll in Trollbabe, though I occasionally did in D&D3e for example. Why is that?

Now we are getting somewhere.

,Matt Gwinn

[Valamir]

I had a conversation with a friend last night about this topic.  He brought something up that I found interesting.

I can't count the number of times I had a D&D character that didn't buy rations, but never starved to death on a long trip.  Is that cheating?  At what point does ommission go from a social contract issue to cheating?  If no one asks me how many days worth of rations are on my character sheet, does that mean it doesn't matter in the eyes of the group?  Of does that simply mean the rest of the group assumes you have them and are removing them as the days pass?

As you note, and I noted, it all depends on the social contract and is why its a good idea to make sure every one is on the same page.  If everyone else is doing it and assuming you are, but you aren't because you didn't realise the group played that way...than that's just an honest mistake and the blame lies with the lack of communication.  If you are aware that you are supposed to be, and when asked reply "oh yeah, I've got plenty" when in fact you've never spent a copper on rations...then you're cheating.  You are violating the practices that have been identified as acceptable behavior for that group in a way designed to obtain advantage for yourself.  Whether that advantage is character survival while others starve or simply saving yourself the trouble...its cheating.

But there are also people that cheat as a way of countering bad luck, protagonizing their characters (which wouldn't be necessary if the GM or system were doing their job), or simply cheat by ommission.

As a big proponent of System Does Matter, I have little sympathy with the idea of cheating as a way of dealing with an ineffective system.  If the system isn't meeting your goals, such that you feel the need to cheat in order to get what you want than discuss the issue with the group and either:
a) create mutually acceptable house rules that address the problem so cheating isn't necessary.
b) find another system where cheating isn't necessary.
c) or if they're fine with things and its you who aren't satisfied, find another group.

surreptitiously cheating to increase your own enjoyment is not IMO an acceptable solution.

Something else we should look at is the difference between cheating in a game and real life.  If your home was struck by lightning and burned to the ground because you never bothered to get a lightning rod, that would suck.  But if you could go back in time and buy that lightning rod, would you?  And if you did, is that a character flaw?  If you were in an rpg, you would be cheating.  Also, in real life a person's success or failure at a task is based on his skill and tenacity, not a random die roll that could just as easily be a 1 as a 20.  In my opinion, cheating on a test is not the same as lieing about rolling a natural 1 at a critical moment in the game.

Again a social contract thing.  I retroactively change things all the time.  But its consensual and that makes it not cheating.  Understand, doing these kinds of things is not the problem.  Doing them in secret is where the violation occurs.

Ralph, do you feel that cheaters somehow diminish the amount of fun you are having when you play?  If so, why not be offended when a GM alters a die roll?  Is it really that different just because the book says so?  Isn't it just as "unfair" to the other players when the GM alters a die roll to keep "your" character alive, or up's the level of a monster because his storyline requires the monster to live longer and the rules are allowing?  And if it doesn't diminish the amount of fun you're having, and it increases the amount of fun the cheater is having, what difference does it make?  Isn't the point of the game to have fun?  Or is the point of the game to have a competition set on an even playing field?  In that case I refer back to my question of system and play style, because that sounds pretty sim to me.

Again social contract.  Is your group the sort that accepts fudging as acceptable GM behavior.  Some groups not only accept it they expect it.  If everyone knows the GM might be doing it and doesn't have a problem with it...it's not cheating.  Its when people THINK the GM is not, but he is, he just isn't admitting it that the violation occurs.

I'm disappointed that no one has discussed my original notion that different styles of play and game design encourage or facilitate cheating.  Whether it is right or wrong is irrelivant.  I still contend that the likelyhood of someone cheating is much higher in a D20 or paladium system, than in a system like Sorcerer or My Life with Master.  

,Matt G.[/quote]
I believe I commented on that in my first post, no?

Regarding Alan's points.  I would disagree with a blanket statement that "FRP players are not competing against each other, but are cooperating".  Sometimes, they ARE.

I'll note again, I am NOT opposed to fudging.  As GM after a player rolled his third fumble in a row I handed him a new d20 and said "roll that again".  But it was an above board everyone knew event.  

Times when the GM fudges in secret are also not cheating IF the group knows in advance that the GM may be doing that and is comfortable with leaving the decision up to him.

Cheating is when a player does something in secret that is not an acceptable behavior to gain some advantage.  If we are talking about something else than it needs a different label than Cheating.

[Wormwood]

Ralph,

The reason words like fudging exist is to make people feel better when they cheat. According to most accepted definitions, all but the most overt and balances types of fudging are cheating. Trying to distance the terms in the way you are seems only to dilute the debate, not to mention evidences a change in your definition from your previous post. While from your perspective there may be no difference in how you used the term, there is a definite subtext which you are incorporating in your response which was not apparent when you first used the term.


Matt,

I apologize for helping to lead the discussion astray, I felt it's important that cheating not be universally considered negative, since this would imply a negative connotation to any modes it has a stronger association to it. From my perspective cheating is a decision, and it's effects can easily aid any mode.

For example, consider the following occurances of cheating:

"Forgetting" a weapon versus armor bonus which would benefit the player in a duel.

Ignoring a portion of a spell description, because it makes less sense in terms of the terrain.

Secretly re-rolling stats because they are too homogeneous.

These are all forms of cheating, and some of them may benefit you, while at other times they may actually have a negative effect. The important part is that they meet the goal of making 1) the challenge more interesting, 2) the system more immersive, or 3) the character more thematicly rich.

In terms of designing games that have less cheating, it's trivially easy to do this in the obvious way, design a rules light game, so there's less space to cheat in, since much less is prohibited by the rules. Another approach is to find out what players actually want, and give it to them. Of course, there's reason to believe that neither of these will sell as well as a game which on some level promotes cheating.

On the other hand, dysfunctional cheating is different, it goes hand in hand with uncooperative agendas. While no mode is lacking these it seems in Gamism it is somewhat more common, since top of the pack is perhaps the easiest non-cooperative agenda to develop.


Alan,

I absolutely agree, much of Fine's work is surprisingly apt even now. His discussions on cheating molded my perspective on the matter. I think it's very true that some game systems have less cheating (in the cooperative form) than others. To me that becomes two major questions:

1) What makes a system more prone to cooperative cheating?

2) And would people prefer a system that is less prone to it?'

I'd be happy for the discussion to focus on either or both of these, rather than to devolve into an unresolvable definition debate.

  -Mendel S.