I think alot of comments by others here are fairly accurate reasons as to why players would fudge dice rolls, but the one that I think is most common is quoted below:

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.

Hello,

Eudas, welcome to the Forge! Your input is appreciated.

I've split your post into starting its own thread. What that means is that the old thread is now considered "closed," due to its age. It's perfectly OK to revive old discussions, but 'round here, the thing to do is to post a thread, with a link to the old one, like this:

Players changing dice results - survey and speculation

Let the discussion continue!

Best,
Ron

Or, that we roll dice less when it "doesn't matter" or is dramatically inappropriate, as we get older...

The decision to play "as the dice fall" tends to be simulationist (the System is The Law), and somewhat Gamist (acceptance of the rules lets us know who the winner is whereas the desire for a player to misrepresent the dice can come from any of the GNS positions: A gamist wants to negate the detrimental effect of failure, a narrativist wants to retain protagonism and a simulationist may regard the results as "unrealistic" for the game world.

In the parent thread, there was talk of "GM sanctioned" cheating in the form of re-rolls to scratch various GNS itches, but to my mind, if it's sanctioned by the group, it isn't cheating per se. Cheating in an RPG is when we unilaterally misrepresent results without asking for a consensual acceptance from the rest of the group.

Question: has there been an RPG that uses a Perudo like device where you can "bluff" your results? Could there be?

(Thinks: Perduo Rune... time for duaghter thread)

To get back to the observation about prevalance of cheating dropping with the maturity of gamers, I think it's a symptom that gamers gain an awareness of what style of game they like, and gravitate towards it, be it high Karma of "let the dice fall," high Drama of "preserve the story" or high Fate of "Calculate the numbers." If the GM and system are on the same page as you, you don't feel the need to cheat to satisfy the urges you have that the game isn't satisfying.

Hi Pete,

Actually, any number of people would contest you that Fortune-based resolution is most consistent with Simulationist play goals. For instance, I tend to think of Drama-based resolution as poorly suited for quite a lot of Narrativist play. Perhaps your perception that Narrativism is about "preserving the story" is the basis for the difference in our views.

Eudas, have you thought about the notion that the term "maturity" is often used as a kind of blunt instrument in discussions, as a euphemism for "what I want"? It's easy to tag people who behave in a way you don't like as "immature." I'd be able to address your point much better if you could describe the behavior that bugs you, especially in terms of exactly which game system you're using ... and maybe we'd see that sometimes people change the results of dice rolls for other reasons than the ones you may be thinking.

Best,
Ron

I understand that the term 'maturity' can be used as a kind of blunt instrument in discussions, particularly those found on web boards. =)

[edit: Let's just prefix a mental "I feel..." or "I think..." to everything here.. maybe it'll make things simpler. Then again, maybe not. Who knows.. heh.]

It's hard to define, though. What I'm talking about is partly what an earlier poster was referring to through 'maturity', which was a sort of integrity and honesty.

Another part of it is anxiety related to success/failure; newer players probably suffer more anxiety related to failure than older, more experienced players. More experienced players not only know how dire consequences of failure may be, but also be able to better 'roll with the punches' if it happens.

More experienced players may also have some of the 'BTDT' syndrome (been there, done that), so whereas a less experienced player may still want victory all the time, a more experienced player may opt for failure just to make things more interesting.

So hrm, maybe I lack the vocabulary to properly express what I am trying to say, but hopefully this little bit helps to explain it somewhat.

eudas

While there are clearly some episodes of dice-modification NOT related to what, I think, the thread is talking about (such as a GM droping a monster sooner to keep the pace enjoyable) I suspect mature behavior might be defined relevantly thusly:

1. the participants being willing in reasonably good grace to accept what they percieve as a loss under the terms they agreed to going into the game (i.e. being at least a moderate loser). This usually comes with experience and the perspctive that philosophical acceptance of a loss is, long-term, more enjoyable to the people involved (including the person who feels they've sufferend the loss) than bitterness.

[This would address "dice modification to 'win'"]

2. Having respect for everyone else at the table so that if someting isn't going their way--but everyone else enjoys it, they can make a decision that takes care of themselves while not ruining things for other people there. This too, is often built with experince.

[A general "hiding rolls from the GM" situation. ]

3. Having tastes that have become varried from appreciation of story only porportional to the 'victory' of the characters (i.e. developing appreciation of a game as a tragedy).

[As tastes become more varried, they *may* have been said to have matured.]

-Marco

Ron Edwards wrote: Eudas, have you thought about the notion that the term "maturity" is often used as a kind of blunt instrument in discussions, as a euphemism for "what I want"? It's easy to tag people who behave in a way you don't like as "immature." I'd be able to address your point much better if you could describe the behavior that bugs you, especially in terms of exactly which game system you're using ... and maybe we'd see that sometimes people change the results of dice rolls for other reasons than the ones you may be thinking.

That shortfall between expectations and realities of the system is why, as a GM, I encourage my players to fudge rolls, to succeed or fail, as long as it fits the gaming atmosphere.

As such, there is no cheating, there's just the shared game. As long as it's approached responsibly then everyone can enjoy it and have fun.

A couple of thoughts converging here:

1 - In many ways, luck/hero/drama/whatever points which players can use to modify die rolls are a form of "sanctioned cheating" -- they give the players a way to "ignore the dice" when wanted, but keep it limited.

2 - GB Steve talks about allowing players to fudge rolls for success or failure. Sometimes, fudging for failure is more fun.

A game I've been playing a lot recently which seems to combine these two is Eden's Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I've mostly been playing "white hat" characters... who, the way the system is constructed, can be competent in one or two areas, but will be largely incompetent.

The system uses an attribute + skill + 1d10 system. By spending a Drama Point (DP), a character can get a +10 on any single roll, once per round. Note that the worst possible roll *with* a DP is better than the best possible one *without* one. Thus, if there's any chance of success at all without one, the character *will* succeed with one.

Between the generally low competence of "white hat" characters, the large bonus for using a DP, and the fact that white hats get lots of DPs to use, the net effect is that players can decide for many tasks when they want to succeed or fail.

--Travis

efindel wrote:
2 - GB Steve talks about allowing players to fudge rolls for success or failure. Sometimes, fudging for failure is more fun.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Pete,

Actually, any number of people would contest you that Fortune-based resolution is most consistent with Simulationist play goals. For instance, I tend to think of Drama-based resolution as poorly suited for quite a lot of Narrativist play. Perhaps your perception that Narrativism is about "preserving the story" is the basis for the difference in our views.

What Pete said.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: What Pete said.

Hi everyone,

I just realized that we've strayed badly from Actual Play. Eudas, appropriately, made his point in specific reference to playing D&D in 7th and 8th grade.

Let's discuss the "maturity" issue (if we can manage to hit upon a consensual definition for this thread) regarding playing Dungeons & Dragons and see whether it applies. Or more accurately, what I'm asking is, what constitutes that "maturity" and how do dice rolls relate to it?

I betcha you can see where I'm coming from with this ... I'm going to point to Creative Agenda (G, N, or S) as the foundation for answering. But any other outlook on the matter is welcome.

Oh yeah. Eudas, it'll help a lot of you'd tell us which sort of D&D we're talking about, in terms of published texts. Year of publication and author would be ideal.

Best,
Ron

OK, I'm still none the wiser as to Lumpley, reference please?

eudas wrote: However, as gamers gain experience, I think that there is a tendency to stop fudging rolls. Sometimes it is due to gaining maturity and realizing the uselessness of cheating in this manner, and sometimes it is just due to people getting better with the system they are playing in so that fudging becomes unnecessary.

Hmm, to sum up: Maturity. Eventually you realize that you don't need to cheat, and that in fact, the game becomes more interesting if you don't.

Ron Edwards wrote:
Oh yeah. Eudas, it'll help a lot of you'd tell us which sort of D&D we're talking about, in terms of published texts. Year of publication and author would be ideal.

Hi Eudas,

No, stay, you're doing fine. I asked about the system so that we wouldn't be applying values and standards for altering dice rolls that make no sense for the game in question.

Let's see, if I go back to my own AD&D play experiences, which were actually pre-2nd edition, part of the values involved were Good Sportsmanship, straight out of gym class. In other words, if you rolled a 1 for damage, that's too bad. There's another chance to hit coming up. And if it so happens that the monster rolled a 16 on its 2d8, and my character gets (as the rulebook put it) "rent to bits," well then. Weenies don't prosper. Quitters never win. That sort of thing.

Groups quickly segregated themselves into camps based on whether these principles were really adopted or not. The fundamental dichotomy was whether one played for personal advantage or for team effectiveness. Within the former, you get the by-the-rules strategists, the calvinballers (rules lawyers), and the "cheaters"; within the latter, you get the hard-core follow-the-leader types and the more happy-go-lucky zesty-fun types, who would ignore rolls that screwed up the fun.

(I'm limiting myself to Gamist D&D here; people played all kinds of ways back then, and I'm leaving out the Sim and Narr modes.)

So even within Gamist D&D, I observed people altering the dice outcomes for different reasons. On the one hand, you have personal advantage and ego; Bob doesn't want to lose in any way, shape, or form, so he pretends he rolled an 18 instead of the 6 he rolled (Bob's average outcome on d20 ends up being about 15 ...). On the other, Bill doesn't want to stop playing, because he's having fun playing, and his character's death would be a downer for everyone, so he does the same.

Bad? Good? Doesn't really matter; it's a matter of priorities. It's kind of interesting to me that Bill's group might come to an explicit agreement that some rolls can be ignored, probably with one person being the final judge, whereas Bob's fudging may actually come to be a form of strategizing against one or more people at the table. I think some points in my Simulationism and Gamism essays respectively do a pretty good job of explaining both of these eventual versions of play.

Overall, my point is that Bill's group might be considered more mature by some people because they alter certain dice rolls, rather than less. I don't necessarily share that view (I think they should find a system which is fun for them regardless of dice outcomes, so they don't have to alter them), but I can see where it's coming from.

Best,
Ron

GB Steve wrote: OK, I'm still none the wiser as to Lumpley, reference please?

I think cheating refers to breaking some kind of social contract. There's some convention that you should report dice rolls accurately. Although I'm not sure I've ever seen it stated in any rules as such, so it's more of a social convention than belonging to RPGs in particular.

If you discard this part of the social contract, and replace it with, for example 'roll the dice as a guide to the outcome of some modelled action' (rather than 'let the dice dictate the outcome of some modelled action'), then the whole question of cheating as such goes away.

It's perhaps the mature thing to understand where the conventions come from, and to realise that they can be changed, or adhered to, as the group concensus allows.

So, I'm don't think though that just sticking to a convention has anything to do with maturity, unless you understand the issues around that convention.

Steve