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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hey Matt,

Valamir wrote: 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.

Matt Gwinn wrote: 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?

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 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.

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?

" 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."

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.

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 wrote: 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?

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 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.

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.

I haven't read through all this, so forgive me if I reiterate something. But it seems to me that the phenomena that are under discussion are all about participants grabbing power. Now, this isn't a bad thing under certain social contracts, and often hjust represents functional drift. But it does mean that there is probably a design that exists that distributes power more in a way that pleases the participants without that drift.

If you have a case where both sides want more power than they're getting, then you have dysfunction. These players need to go back to the social contract and decide what sort of distribuation they want as a group. And then find a system that delivers it.

Mike

Wormwood wrote: 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.

Ralph,

I think we should both drop this issue, it is obvious that what you call fudging, is included in what the other posters are calling cheating, the opposite might not always be the case, so if you use fudging and cheating, in the same way that the other posters are using habitual and non-habitual cheating, it will be mutually understandable. Then we can get to the real discussion.

Thank you for your time,

-Mendel S.

Hello,

Ralph and Mendel will have to work some of this stuff out on their own, I think ...

I'm going back to Matt's original question, and here's my take: cheating, as a term, seems to me to indicate that the Social Contract is being broken. This is a Lumpley Principle thing too - if System is the means by which the group agrees upon in-game events, then cheating occurs when someone gets an in-game event to happen when System (which is to say, everyone else's agreed-upon method) says it shouldn't.

By this definition, fudging is not necessarily cheating, specifically, when the group knows that the GM might ignore dice outcomes once in a while, and everyone's OK with that. Plenty of game texts include overt "go ahead and fudge" text in order to encourage that attitude.

I think the discussion went off the rails when "winning" was brought into the picture. Winning is just one goal that can lead people to cheat. It's not the only such goal; for example, wanting to continue to play, when the rules state that character-death makes this impossible.

Best,
Ron

There isn't really anything to work out. You basically said 100% the exact same thing I've been saying.

I really have no interest in engaging in a discussion whose overt goal is to make cheating seem acceptable. I find the very concept morally reprehensible.

That was not the original goal of the thread, however, I don't believe the goal of the thread can be addressed until everyone is on the same page as to what is being discussed when the word cheating is used.

I refuse to accept any bogus definition that labels fudging as a form of cheating or cheating as a form of fudging. Its provable nonsense.

Ron, the distinction between fudging and cheating that you outline above is exactly the distinction I was making. If the ongoing discussion on the topic is going to use this distinction as a starting point than I am happy to continue.

If not, then I will bow out of the discussion all together because exactly nothing of value can come from conflating the idea of fudging and cheating together.

Well, the solution is clear:

Matt, what do you think?

Best,
Ron

My intention with this thread was to discuss what kind sof games facilitate cheating among players. GMs fudging die rolls was never an issue to me, as most RPGs clearly grant the GM that power. I am specifically targeting players and system here.

I don't want to get into the differences between Fudging and Cheating, or whether or not it's a good thing or a bad thing.

Asuming that a certain level of cheating is acceptable in your group, I'm curious as to whether or not different systems or styles of play make a difference in how often a cheater will cheat.

Going back to Ralph's test annalogy. An all essay test is far more difficult to cheat on than a multiple choice test. Just like a game that uses dice is easier to cheat with than a diceless game.

Also, a person who is likely to cheat anyway, might be more likely to cheat on a particularly difficult test - the chance of failure outweighs the risk of being caught. While the same person may not cheat on a test he considers easy, or not worth the risk. Now in both instance the person is the same - it's the test that's different. So, if an RPG is designed differently, doesn't it stand to reason that the likelyhood of someone cheating will change as well?

,Matt G.

Matt Gwinn wrote:
Asuming that a certain level of cheating is acceptable in your group, I'm curious as to whether or not different systems or styles of play make a difference in how often a cheater will cheat.

Matt Gwinn wrote: So, if an RPG is designed differently, doesn't it stand to reason that the likelyhood of someone cheating will change as well?

Chris,

I'm just a pragmatist. The way I see it, cheating is problematic usually because it goes against the categorical imperative. That is, if you have a fun game, you ruin it for yourself and everyone. So I don't cheat in those situations. That includes losing. I don't cheat to "win".

If a game isn't any fun, if there's no point in playing it, then cheating isn't going to make that any worse. So if I can cheat and make a game worthwhile somehow, I'll do it.

You just have to be careful. If someone else is having fun, and cheating would hurt them, then it's unethical (hence why you can't cheat to win). But fudging is precisely "cheating" to improve the quality of the game for all. That is, if cheating is defined as unethical, then fudging for the right reasons can't be cheating. Context counts.

Mike

Valamir wrote:

Wormwood wrote: 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.

This is fundamentally wrong. In fact, I'd reverse your statement. That trying to claim cheating is just another form of fudging is merely an attempt to make cheaters appear less unwholesome.

The difference between the two is dramatic, measurable, and defineable.

You are in college. You are taking a test. You open the text book to look up an answer. Either:

a) this behavior is acceptable because its an open book test, meaning the professor, other students are aware of the behavior and have agreed its appropriate. or

b) its cheating if you are doing it secretly and the professor and other students understand that it is NOT an open book test.


The difference is plain. One is socially acceptable behavior. The other will get you a failing grade and potentially expelled. There is no blurry line. There is no grey area. There is right and there is wrong...and there are people who want to do wrong and pretend that it isn't...but it is. Cheating is negative period, any arguement to the contrary is just spin-control.

Now...is this me on a high horse professing my candidacy for sainthood. No. I've cheated in RPGs before. I've lied about the number rolled. I've used transparent crystal dice that are impossible to read across the table to make the task easier. I've pulled the "cocked-die" gimmick. But I'm not going to sit here and try and say that wasn't cheating. It was. It was wrong. I did it...but it was still cheating.

Hi Charly,

That is really interesting. Most groups which permit fudging usually still keep the rolls secret, in that many players don't mind if the GM fudges as long as they don't know exactly when. That's what most of the texts which encourage fudging assume as well; they always say "But never let the players know" in no uncertain terms.

Best,
Ron

Okay, I'm going to bow out of this discussion. The word cheating has taken on too many varying connotations for me to effectively navigate between them.

-Chris

I just started a new thread in Actual Play asking for people's real experience of changing dice results themselves. I think it'll be interesting to collect some anecdotal evidence and see if there's any system or GNS correlation.