PDA

View Full Version : Is asking for advice between game sessions cheating?



Pages : [1] 2

JonestheSpy
2010-10-26, 01:40 AM
So, every now and then I see these threads along the lines of "My party has met up with [X challenge], what should we do?" And I get this vision of of a group of adventurers in a dungeon whipping out a cell phone and telling a charging monster "Hold on, going to use a LifeLine".

As a DM, I figure the point is to come up with challenges for the players, not the entire blogonet. Asking for advice between games seems a lot like text messaging your friends for the answers during trivia quiz night at the pub, you know?

Your characters are facing this, you figure it out. Better yet, figure out what your character would do, hm?

Jacque
2010-10-26, 01:50 AM
An intelligent enough character could perhaps justify the infosearch on the web between sessions. The character's knowledge on the matter would be greater than the average player.

Sounds to me like you're playing a game of DM vs players instead of DM for players.

Coidzor
2010-10-26, 01:59 AM
Unless what they try to do is a party foul all on its own regardless of where the idea came from or they actually do something like read through the text of a published adventure that is currently in progress, I'd say no.

Now, the advice asked for might be considered in poor taste the more specific it is until it gets to the point where it's being puzzled over insane adventure game logic on the part of the DM/adventure designer. Then it just becomes a spectacle of consternation.

Mastikator
2010-10-26, 02:03 AM
An intelligent enough character could perhaps justify the infosearch on the web between sessions. The character's knowledge on the matter would be greater than the average player.

This would seem like the one and only scenario it wouldn't count as cheating. And even then much of the advice you get would still be useless since it'd have to be appropriate from the characters point of view.

Endarire
2010-10-26, 02:45 AM
In large part, a player and his character are connected. If you (player) know something, you may subconsciously display you do, regardless of intentions.

Also, you may have a disconnect from your character. If you're a nice guy™ playing a cannibal, your character may be hungry, but you may toss your pizza if you ponder a few minutes about the taste of human flesh, and acne's resemblance to pepperoni.

Killer Angel
2010-10-26, 02:48 AM
Your characters are facing this, you figure it out.

I agree with you. I find a little annoying even when the players plan the strategy between themselves during the week, when we stop a combat and we resume it the next session.
It's combat, a round is a few seconds. Not a week of research and planning (although during your free time).


Sounds to me like you're playing a game of DM vs players instead of DM for players.

Asking help and easy solutions in the forums, instead, seems to me "the DM certainly wants to screw us, so I ask to people smarter then me how to beat him... AKA I don't wanna lose D&D". :smallconfused:

Asking advice on a problem is a matter and can be acceptable, but there's a limit.

Serpentine
2010-10-26, 02:52 AM
Hmm. Never thought about that. I would say... it depends on things that are actually fairly independent from the actual action (i.e. looking for advice elsewhere).
So, for example, if you have a high Intelligence character, I think getting input from a number of people is a valid way to roleplay that ability score. However, the player must take care to not start metagaming with it. So if a player came here with a description of some weird and terrifying creature that neither the player nor the character had come across before, and then someone informed them that it was the Terrible Grunsk that is easily beaten by hitting it in the chin with an icecube, and the player/character proceeded to do exactly that in the game without having any justification for it, then that would be very bad form.
On the other hand, if someone was playing a fairly high Intelligence Wizard with lots of experience under her belt who knew that it's a Terrible Grunsk and its weakness, but came here for tactical advice, I think that could be acceptable.

Coidzor
2010-10-26, 03:32 AM
I agree with you. I find a little annoying even when the players plan the strategy between themselves during the week, when we stop a combat and we resume it the next session.
It's combat, a round is a few seconds. Not a week of research and planning (although during your free time).

Well, that would be your own fault if it bothers you that much as a DM.

If you don't want your players thinking up strategy against an enemy, don't have the combat against them last so long that a strategy needs to be formulated and really don't end the session with a combat that's going to drag on if you don't have wiggle room time-wise.

And if they're doing badly but haven't been TPK'd they've demonstrated that they can't overcome it with their own spur of the moment thinking (by virtue of it being alive) but also don't deserve to die for it out of hand (by virtue of them not being dead yet).

Killer Angel
2010-10-26, 03:51 AM
Well, that would be your own fault if it bothers you that much as a DM.


I've said that I'm annoyed, not that I take countermeasures against them. :smallwink:
I recognize it's partly my fault, so I let them discuss and planning, without any repercussion: otherwise, it would be very unfair from me.
It's not a thing that you can do in combat during the session, but I recognize it's a normal thing to do, between separate sessions.

But such a planning between players, it's a different thing from the point raised in the OP.

DonEsteban
2010-10-26, 04:20 AM
There's is no rule against it (except house rules), so no: it isn't "cheating". The more important question, however, is "does it ruin the fun or does it add to it?" And the answer is, of course, highly subjective and situational.

I usually wouldn't do it, because I prefer solving my (in-game) problems myself or within the group to asking the community about a solution. I admit that there are situations where it could be fun if the community comes up with a really awesome solution and you incorporate this into the game. But that depends on the situation and the group.

So, again, don't ask yourself "is it cheating?", but "will it be fun for my group?".

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 04:28 AM
Also, you may have a disconnect from your character. If you're a nice guy™ playing a cannibal, your character may be hungry, but you may toss your pizza if you ponder a few minutes about the taste of human flesh, and acne's resemblance to pepperoni.

Mmmmm...pizza...:smalltongue:

Killer Angel
2010-10-26, 04:31 AM
If you're a nice guy™ playing a cannibal, your character may be hungry, but you may toss your pizza if you ponder a few minutes about the taste of human flesh, and acne's resemblance to pepperoni.

You are what you eat. Cannibalism FTW! :smallbiggrin:

akma
2010-10-26, 04:52 AM
Ok, it`s cheating (a bit), now what?

FelixG
2010-10-26, 04:55 AM
Is it cheating? No

I may have to ask for advise now and then from my compu-friends on campaigns, but i figure a discussion between 3-4 people over the course of a few days between sessions is about the same as my 23 int megamind can come up with in a round or so.

Also fun: Player just claims they have multiple voices in their head coaching them. TADA! :smallbiggrin:

Gaiyamato
2010-10-26, 05:00 AM
Also, you may have a disconnect from your character. If you're a nice guy™ playing a cannibal, your character may be hungry, but you may toss your pizza if you ponder a few minutes about the taste of human flesh, and acne's resemblance to pepperoni.

...
I'm not seeing the issue. Cannibals are pretty tame and I'm fairly certain I know to some degree what human flesh takes like as an extraction from the smell of burning flesh.

This actually upsets some people?

As for the OP. I don't think it is cheating. Really. If my INT 20 wizard was stuck because the player (me) was a dumbass then it would be really lame.

Grogmir
2010-10-26, 05:01 AM
Your players are talking about the game between sessions and this is a problem to you?

Its a sign you're making the game fun - reveal in the moments when the game has finished but they still talk amongst themselves about the world or how to kill 'them dratted ninja goblins'. Thats where your fun comes from. (That and being able to screw with them at any time of course :smallwink:)

So my advice is don't worry so much - if they are thinking about what they'll do next session - why don't you do the same?

Overall think the OP is overreacting and taking it too personal. There only so much realism you can cram into a game where people are flinging fireballs at each other. :smallsmile:

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-26, 05:29 AM
That sword cuts both ways. I assume then, those of you share the OP's views, you don't plan your encounter tactics in advance either? So the players are being challenged by the monster, not you? No?

Any argument you can make for the PCs not doing it you can make for the DM, for exactly the same reasons.

I can't beleive anyone is actually complaining that their players take so much interest in their game that they work on it outside of the session... I'm lucky if most of my players remember what happened last week!

If your players are feeling like they need to go to a forum and ask for advise, JonestheSpy, I'd ask myself why. Are your encounters that hard that they feel they'll all be wiped out otherwise? Or are the players jerks who like curb-stomp everything you do for the sake of "beating the DM?" Or something else?

But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Remember, there's nothing stopping the DM asking for advise between sessions, either. (In fact it's more common, since realistically, your one DM-brain, even with all the extra time to plan while preparing the game, is not going to win all the time, out-thinking 4-8 other player-brains.)

Certainly, as DM, I often will have spent considerable time, planning the NPC's attack stratagies and tactics when I write the adventure, and I absolutely plan ahead my next set of actions if the combat happens to span more than one session. So the PCs are encouraged to do the same, and I always feel thankful if my players want to put the extra time in to do anything outside of the session.

If it comes down to the fact you (the general you, not the specific) don't want to do that because it makes more work for you, I think you have larger problems as DM with playstyle compatibility with your players.

Killer Angel
2010-10-26, 05:58 AM
If it comes down to the fact you (the general you, not the specific) don't want to do that because it makes more work for you, I think you have larger problems as DM with playstyle compatibility with your players.

The OP wasn't about Jones' group, but about a general attitude seen by him in the forums.


I can't beleive anyone is actually complaining that their players take so much interest in their game that they work on it outside of the session... I'm lucky if most of my players remember what happened last week!


I think no one disagrees with this



If your players are feeling like they need to go to a forum and ask for advise, JonestheSpy, I'd ask myself why. Are your encounters that hard that they feel they'll all be wiped out otherwise? Or are the players jerks who like curb-stomp everything you do for the sake of "beating the DM?" Or something else?

But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Remember, there's nothing stopping the DM asking for advise between sessions, either. (In fact it's more common, since realistically, your one DM-brain, even with all the extra time to plan while preparing the game, is not going to win all the time, out-thinking 4-8 other player-brains.)


There's no Black and white in this matter.
A DM prepare his tactics in advance. The group does the same.
Asking for opinions in the forum, sometime is fine, sometime not.

There's a difference between a DM asking
"I'm not able to challenge the group's Incantatrix"
and
"help me screw my group, which is made of these characters..."

There's a difference between a player asking
"I wanna to try this tactic, is that good?"
and
"Why should I risk to fail? can someone halp me beat my DM?"

And there's a lot of room between.

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-26, 06:08 AM
The OP wasn't about Jones' group, but about a general attitude seen by him in the forums.

He's complaining about things other groups are doing...?

Um...

I'm not even sure how to begin to respond to that.


There's no Black and white in this matter.

*snip*

And there's a lot of room between.

Which I why I say (in a now-general, non-specific sense); if a DM's players are going to the forums (regularly) for help specifically in dealing with his encounters (i.e. as opposed to more general advise) as postulated by the OP (and the DM has a problem with that), maybe the DM ought to have a close look at why they are doing so, because it's likely to be something that's symptomatic of an underlying issue.

Subotei
2010-10-26, 06:09 AM
The amount of XP to award is in the hands of the GM - if the PCs are consistently abusing outside knowledge to reduce the challenge then give them less XP.

weenie
2010-10-26, 06:09 AM
If I remember correctly, SCS's campaign journals started with her asking this forum for help. Not only do I not consider it cheating, but in my opinion it's a compliment to the DM for creating compelling and hard-to-break problems and also a way to let us forum readers in on some of the fun.

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 06:11 AM
The There's no Black and white in this matter.
A DM prepare his tactics in advance. The group does the same.
Asking for opinions in the forum, sometime is fine, sometime not.

Really? Planning tactics in advance? I usually only plan an encounter's setup. Tactics is a fluid thing, you have to adjust as you go. Even the best plan fails, as soon as the first shot is fired.

Killer Angel
2010-10-26, 06:14 AM
He's complaining about things other groups are doing...?


Well, judgin from the OP, there's nothing that points to Jones' group.
Of course, I can be wrong.


Which I why I say (in a now-general, non-specific sense); if a DM's players are going to the forums (regularly) for help specifically in dealing with his encounters (i.e. as opposed to more general advise) as postulated by the OP (and the DM has a problem with that), maybe the DM ought to have a close look at why they are doing so, because it's likely to be something that's symptomatic of an underlying issue.

Well, if this is done regularly, certainly there's a problem. If the problem lies in the DM, the player(s) or both, who can tell? :smallsmile:


Really? Planning tactics in advance? I usually only plan an encounter's setup. Tactics is a fluid thing, you have to adjust as you go. Even the best plan fails, as soon as the first shot is fired.

Not always.
Scry 'n die requires the planning of an attack.
Sometime, in a certain situations (guards in a castle, etc), you can have a pre-determined tactic for certain situations, that the guards will follow.
You plan tactics in advance. Only, more often than not, they don't survive the battlefield. :smallwink:

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-26, 06:20 AM
Really? Planning tactics in advance? I usually only plan an encounter's setup. Tactics is a fluid thing, you have to adjust as you go. Even the best plan fails, as soon as the first shot is fired.

I plan in detail. (Well, at least as far as spellcasters are concerned.) Then again, my encounters tend to me MUCH larger and more complicated than most, and I play modules (which means there is often a long gap between writing the encounter and running it. To be honest, this in the end has been the major factor) Doesn't mean you stick to the plan, but it helps to have a laundry list of optimal picks to serve as a starting point.

(E.g. my "finest" example" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-160818.html) now in the archives, basically required some between-session planning on both sides...!)

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 06:22 AM
Not always.
Scry 'n die requires the planning of an attack.

I wouldn't know. My players ride the rails like there's no tomorrow. They follow the scenario, generally as written, and don't use silly tactics like scry'n'die. It takes all the adventure out of adventuring. (You know what you get when you take all the adventure out of adventuring? You get -ing. Where's the fun in that? :smalltongue:)

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-26, 06:23 AM
Well, if this is done regularly, certainly there's a problem. If the problem lies in the DM, the player(s) or both, who can tell? :smallsmile:

That was my point. There could be a whole host of reasons, for a killer GM to players who take a chidlish delight in "winning" D&D by breaking the game and "putting one over the DM."

I wasn't suggesting that it was always the DM's fault.

Kaeso
2010-10-26, 06:29 AM
I don't think it should always matter.
A PC's knowledge and the Player's knowledge are seperate. This means that a cleric will be wiser than it's player, a wizard more intelligent and a fighter/paladin/knight more strategy-savvy. In those cases a player asking for help or brainstorming between sessions could emulate the intelligence or tactical knowledge of his PC.While some could argue this doesn't apply to a barbarian, a barbarian will still know alot about what to do during battle from sheer experience (unless you're playing a "Thog smash squishy things"-barbarian) with a -3 int penalty.

bokodasu
2010-10-26, 06:32 AM
It depends, but mostly I'd say no, it's not cheating. In a game, I might be a mighty wizard who's devoted years of her life to studying the inner workings of the arcane; in real life, I barely have time to glance at half my spells. My character should know that spell x intersects with spell y to produce effect z, but I don't, and asking teh interwebz is a valid method of research in this case.

Don't think of it as "stopping in the middle of a battle to check wikipedia", think of it as retconning character knowledge. If it's something they should have known, they knew it all along and they were just toying with the monster at the beginning of the battle, or suffering a temporary bout of amnesia, or something.

NeoRetribution
2010-10-26, 06:35 AM
Is asking for advice between game sessions cheating?

Hm, that question needs more definition.

Is it cheating to ask your GameMaster or Group for help? No.

Is it cheating to ask an Internet community of avid and experienced gamers for help to thwart the GameMaster? Well, yes, unless permission has already been given.

Generally, if an action is going to harm someone else to an unreasonable and unnecessary degree that action should probably be avoided. This assumes the individual in question wants to be polite and nice.


In relation to the original post in this thread one of my table rules comes to mind: If a Player brings a cellular telephone it must be turned off. Play will not begin, or resume, until it is.

It was amusing to imagine the B.B.E.G ask suddenly, "Would you like to call a friend?"

Killer Angel
2010-10-26, 06:38 AM
That was my point. There could be a whole host of reasons, for a killer GM to players who take a chidlish delight in "winning" D&D by breaking the game and "putting one over the DM."


Then, we have an agreement... :smallsmile:



It was amusing to imagine the B.B.E.G ask suddenly, "Would you like to call a friend?"


mmm... a very overconfident BBEG... It could be funny. :smalltongue:

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 06:44 AM
Don't think of it as "stopping in the middle of a battle to check wikipedia", think of it as retconning character knowledge. If it's something they should have known, they knew it all along and they were just toying with the monster at the beginning of the battle, or suffering a temporary bout of amnesia, or something.

Alternatively, don't end the session in the middle of a fight. Always wait until right after so that the players have no way of knowing what's coming up next, if you're concerned about the interwebz.

Coidzor
2010-10-26, 06:51 AM
In relation to the original post in this thread one of my table rules comes to mind: If a Player brings a cellular telephone it must be turned off. Play will not begin, or resume, until it is.

It was amusing to imagine the B.B.E.G ask suddenly, "Would you like to call a friend?"



Considering those are two entirely different scenarios.

But quite the amusing image. I'm currently trying to figure out what sort of visual to pair it with.

Psyx
2010-10-26, 06:52 AM
I despair a bit when I read those threads. I do think it's cheating. The GM wrote a scenario to challenge his specific set of players, and so asking several hundred people for advice between sessions is most certainly cheating.
I'd say it was even worse if the session finished mid-combat, as then it's actually impossible to really justify it in character in any way.

I -as a GM- do not want to set problems for the internet to solve.

It's even worse in the case of published scenarios. 'We're doing to Tomb of Horrors, what characters should we take?'. Yeah: That's kind of cheating because you are directly relying on and asking for the advice of people who have read/played the module. And you can bet that at least two people who reply will have a big enough mouth that they give away information that they shouldn't as regards the specifics of the scenario or an encounter. You might as well just skim-read the scenario if someone is going to lay out to you the type of threats you'll be facing and what items to take with you and spells to consider memming.

Finally, if the question is technical in nature because I -as a player- don't understand my own character's abilities and spells, then I should perhaps either not be playing that character, or be asking from advice from my own GM or gaming group.

bokodasu
2010-10-26, 07:38 AM
Well, yeah, my first thought was "why would you end a session in mid-combat?" but then I thought well, maybe their house caught on fire and everyone had to evacuate before they could finish.

It could happen.

As to not playing characters who know things that you as a player don't, thanks, I think I'll pass on playing a commoner. Yes, I could spend hours poring over game books and letting my children starve, OR I could act like a member of a social species and just ask someone who knows.

Either way, it's the same information; it's not like magical internet fairies are making up rules that any player couldn't discover with enough research.

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 07:44 AM
Well, yeah, my first thought was "why would you end a session in mid-combat?" but then I thought well, maybe their house caught on fire and everyone had to evacuate before they could finish.

It could happen.


Really? You'd stop playing for a fire? The DnD books and the dice are the second things out the door, right after my family. We can continue by firelight, if need be. :smalltongue:

Killer Angel
2010-10-26, 07:45 AM
Well, yeah, my first thought was "why would you end a session in mid-combat?" but then I thought well, maybe their house caught on fire and everyone had to evacuate before they could finish.

It could happen.


:smallannoyed:

Oh, yes, it's totally implausible that it's too soon to end the session, you start a combat (maybe the players decide to enter in the guarded hall) and, after 3 quarters hour, you need to take a break, ending the session...


Yes, I could spend hours poring over game books and letting my children starve, OR I could act like a member of a social species and just ask someone who knows.


:smallsigh:


(Edit: If you were sarcastic, i didn't notice it)

elpollo
2010-10-26, 07:48 AM
I wouldn't know. My players ride the rails like there's no tomorrow. They follow the scenario, generally as written, and don't use silly tactics like scry'n'die. It takes all the adventure out of adventuring. (You know what you get when you take all the adventure out of adventuring? You get -ing. Where's the fun in that? :smalltongue:)

Assuming you're conforming to the typical "kick in the door and blast" school of adventuring. Many prefer to fight constant guerilla warfare style hit and run attacks with SWAT-like efficiency, and there's nothing wrong with that - you're a high level, you should have learnt some tricks to avoid unnecessary conflict, as you don't want to risk death. You don't lose the adventure, you just get a different type, especially when enemies start using the same tactics on you.



Is it cheating to ask your GameMaster or Group for help? No.

Is it cheating to ask an Internet community of avid and experienced gamers for help to thwart the GameMaster? Well, yes, unless permission has already been given.

Why is there a distinction? If you're asking one person why is asking a different person not alright? Unless you're specifically doing it in character the result is the same (although you've got more chance of stumbling over a good idea if more are thrown at you).

More importantly, why is it "thwarting"? It's not the GM's game.



Generally, if an action is going to harm someone else to an unreasonable and unnecessary degree that action should probably be avoided. This assumes the individual in question wants to be polite and nice.

Who's harming what now?



In relation to the original post in this thread one of my table rules comes to mind: If a Player brings a cellular telephone it must be turned off. Play will not begin, or resume, until it is.

But that's presumably for a completely different reason - to avoid slowing down game with calls. I'm guessing your players don't ring their friends to find out how to best a dragon mid-game.



I despair a bit when I read those threads. I do think it's cheating. The GM wrote a scenario to challenge his specific set of players, and so asking several hundred people for advice between sessions is most certainly cheating.
I'd say it was even worse if the session finished mid-combat, as then it's actually impossible to really justify it in character in any way.

Have you never been doing something and suddenly had a flash of inspiration for a better way to do it?



I -as a GM- do not want to set problems for the internet to solve.

Presumably you also do not set problems for you to solve. If the players can't do it, why can't they ask for pointers from an outside party? It might just point them in the right direction - there's no reason that they have to follow the advice given to a letter.



It's even worse in the case of published scenarios. 'We're doing to Tomb of Horrors, what characters should we take?'. Yeah: That's kind of cheating because you are directly relying on and asking for the advice of people who have read/played the module.

Wait, it's cheating to play the same module twice?



And you can bet that at least two people who reply will have a big enough mouth that they give away information that they shouldn't as regards the specifics of the scenario or an encounter. You might as well just skim-read the scenario if someone is going to lay out to you the type of threats you'll be facing and what items to take with you and spells to consider memming.

Yeah... except most people spoiler such things. There's no harm in having general advice like "Oh, don't focus on turning undead - there aren't any in the module" or "Yeah... fire mage is a bad idea when going to the plane of fire". It can stop people making useless characters and allow them to actually enjoy the game.



Finally, if the question is technical in nature because I -as a player- don't understand my own character's abilities and spells, then I should perhaps either not be playing that character, or be asking from advice from my own GM or gaming group.

So... new people can never play? Or do they have to buy, read and digest the books before they make their first character? Ok, it makes sense to ask your group for help, but your group might have it wrong or might not know either. The forums are filled with people who know what they're talking about.


edit in response to posts made whilst I was posting -


:smallannoyed:

Oh, yes, it's totally implausible that it's too soon to end the session, you start a combat (maybe the players decide to enter in the guarded hall) and, after 3 quarters hour, you decide to take a break...

No, it's not unreasonable to finish in the middle of a combat. Things often take a turn for the unexpected, and we have lives outside the game.



:smallsigh:

This, however, is not actually a counter to a valid point. Why is asking someone in the know a bad thing?

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 07:54 AM
Assuming you're conforming to the typical "kick in the door and blast" school of adventuring. Many prefer to fight constant guerilla warfare style hit and run attacks with SWAT-like efficiency, and there's nothing wrong with that - you're a high level, you should have learnt some tricks to avoid unnecessary conflict, as you don't want to risk death. You don't lose the adventure, you just get a different type, especially when enemies start using the same tactics on you.

We don't generally play high-level games. We like to switch up our characters after about 5-10 levels. Plus, we run published modules pretty often in 3.5. In 4e, however, I run my own campaign world, and no published modules. So they can use whatever tactics are necessary to get the job done, but generally prefer old school dungeon crawls to scry'n'die even then. Where's the harm in us following our preferences?

Zaydos
2010-10-26, 07:57 AM
One thing I'm surprised no one has pointed out is:

If you ask for help on the internet you will get responses which quote your chance of success based on the monsters stats.

I.e. it ends up the same as looking up the monster in the book.

Now when you say it's not cheating to ask for help; would you also say that it's not cheating to look up the monster's stats?

Amphetryon
2010-10-26, 07:59 AM
Why is there a differentiation in this case between the players doing research through books and similar in between sessions, and players doing research through interpersonal skills? I know from my time writing research papers, back in the late Middle Ages, that interviewing experts on a given subject was a viable and valuable source of information, rather than a frowned upon way to "cheat" the system by not reading something someone else - possibly even the same expert! - had written down beforehand.

OP, would you be upset if you ended a session mid-combat and your players went home and, during the course of the time between sessions, reviewed the books containing the info on how their classes, skills, feats, and equipment work in order to come up with a better strategy? Would you be upset if the player(s) with the relevant Knowledge skills for the encounter did a little reading to try to discern more about their foe and, in so researching, realized they had a solution at hand that they hadn't considered?

If the answer to the above questions is "no," then what difference do you perceive between doing the reading in books, and doing the reading on ze intarwebz?

If the answer to the above questions is "yes," then how do players keep apprised of their characters' abilities and future options for encounters and level increases, if reading up on their abilities is frowned upon in your campaign?

elpollo
2010-10-26, 08:00 AM
We don't generally play high-level games. We like to switch up our characters after about 5-10 levels. Plus, we run published modules pretty often in 3.5. In 4e, however, I run my own campaign world, and no published modules. So they can use whatever tactics are necessary to get the job done, but generally prefer old school dungeon crawls to scry'n'die even then. Where's the harm in us following our preferences?

Oh, I never said there was anything wrong with it. I thought you were saying there was something wrong with scry'n'die and was defending it. Doesn't matter to me at the end of the day.

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 08:04 AM
Oh, I never said there was anything wrong with it. I thought you were saying there was something wrong with scry'n'die and was defending it. Doesn't matter to me at the end of the day.

Nothing inherently wrong with it. I just find it un-fun, and prefer to slog through miles of dungeon to an epic battle with the BBEG, rather than teleport around miles of dungeon to an epic battle with the BBEG.

Killer Angel
2010-10-26, 08:18 AM
elpollo, sorry but I'm not following you


Oh, yes, it's totally implausible that it's too soon to end the session, you start a combat (maybe the players decide to enter in the guarded hall) and, after 3 quarters hour, you need to take a break, ending the session...



No, it's not unreasonable to finish in the middle of a combat. Things often take a turn for the unexpected, and we have lives outside the game.


Of course, I agree. I was debating Bokodasu's point, which was using things like houses on fire as the only valid reason to stop a combat.


:smallsigh:



This, however, is not actually a counter to a valid point.

Again, my small-sigh-smile was referred to Bokodasu's post, which presented the alternative: "ask for forum's help or let my children starve for the lack of time". Is that the valid point you're referring to?

elpollo
2010-10-26, 08:25 AM
Again, my small-sigh-smile was referred to Bokodasu's post, which presented the alternative: "ask for forum's help or let my children starve for the lack of time". Is that the valid point you're referring to?

Nope. Whilst it was a rather extreme option, his premise of "If you have a query you could just ask the large database of knowledge instead of wasting time searching through books for an answer that might not even be in those books" was a good one. You seemed to sort of brush over it.

Coidzor
2010-10-26, 08:25 AM
Is hyperbole, highlighting the amount of time investment between looking up everything in one's library manually when one can instead ask people who may have just been discussing the very thing you want to know about just moments prior. Or the time it takes to read through 3 books and the time it takes to run a google search.

Killer Angel
2010-10-26, 08:25 AM
If the answer to the above questions is "no," then what difference do you perceive between doing the reading in books, and doing the reading on ze intarwebz?


The difference I perceive, is:
reading the books, YOU come with a solution for your character
asking on forums: SOMEONE ELSE comes with a solution for your character

Killer Angel
2010-10-26, 08:29 AM
Nope. Whilst it was a rather extreme option, his premise of "If you have a query you could just ask the large database of knowledge instead of wasting time searching through books for an answer that might not even be in those books" was a good one. You seemed to sort of brush over it.


Is hyperbole, highlighting the amount of time investment between looking up everything in one's library manually when one can instead ask people who may have just been discussing the very thing you want to know about just moments prior. Or the time it takes to read through 3 books and the time it takes to run a google search.


Ah, I see, I was distracted by his hyperbole, missing the real question.
Then I apologize.

The answer could be: if a forumeer tells me how I should play to overcome a challenge, it would spoil my satisfaction in doing it by myself.
It's the same if, while you're playing, the barbarian's player tells you "don't cast this, cast that".
Someone's else experience, is good when you're building a character, but then it should depend only on you.

Amphetryon
2010-10-26, 08:45 AM
The difference I perceive, is:
reading the books, YOU come with a solution for your character
asking on forums: SOMEONE ELSE comes with a solution for your character

There is, potentially, another layer to add to this.

What if, for example, the DM has access to books that you do not have access to between sessions for some reason? You've chosen to make your character an Elemental Scion of Zilargo, from Magic of Eberron, because the DM owns and allows that book, but you don't, personally, own it. Combat starts, you forget about your ability to use Elemental Merge in the first round or two, session ends. You go home. You hopefully have "Elemental Merge" scribbled somewhere on your character sheet, but it's quite likely you didn't have the time or space to write out a detailed explanation of what that ability does and how it's used. After all, you can access the book during the session, so you didn't figure you needed to copy out all the abilities exactly. Is it cheating to go looking for answers to how that ability might help?

RagnaroksChosen
2010-10-26, 08:46 AM
My opinion is it depends on the character.
If a character has high wisdom/int I generally don't have a problem with looking up solutions to puzzles or asking online community for help. as well alot of my players are not into puzzles or complex issues. However I do have a problem when the party barbarian comes in and gives the solution to a complex puzzle that doesn't involve bashing the thing. (mainly cuz barbs in my groups tend to have 8-10 int and/or 8-10 wis.)


So really it depends.

elpollo
2010-10-26, 08:59 AM
The answer could be: if a forumeer tells me how I should play to overcome a challenge, it would spoil my satisfaction in doing it by myself.
It's the same if, while you're playing, the barbarian's player tells you "don't cast this, cast that".
Someone's else experience, is good when you're building a character, but then it should depend only on you.

But you may not be sure of all the options. Asking a forum is a good way to get a lot of options thrust at you. You don't then have to take them (and indeed most people seem to go away making their own ideas out of the options presented). I can understand not wanting a player to give up on thinking for themselves, but if you're stumped for ideas fora are great places to get them.



My opinion is it depends on the character.
If a character has high wisdom/int I generally don't have a problem with looking up solutions to puzzles or asking online community for help. as well alot of my players are not into puzzles or complex issues. However I do have a problem when the party barbarian comes in and gives the solution to a complex puzzle that doesn't involve bashing the thing.

So to clarify, does that boils down to "No, it's not cheating but don't play out of character"?

RagnaroksChosen
2010-10-26, 09:03 AM
So to clarify, does that boils down to "No, it's not cheating but don't play out of character"?

Sort of, Its more of a good friend of mine likes playing smart skill rogues. However he's a carpenter and isn't into criticaly thinking alot out side of gaming. So though his character has an 18 int and could easily figure something out he can't so rather then me just giving it to him which is lame. He looks it up between sessions.

so yes.

However I do have a problem with ending a sission in the middle of a fight then every one look up the monsters they where fighting to find the weekness.

Killer Angel
2010-10-26, 09:04 AM
There is, potentially, another layer to add to this.

What if, for example, the DM has access to books that you do not have access to between sessions for some reason? (snip). Is it cheating to go looking for answers to how that ability might help?

Not only this isn't "cheating", but I as a DM would encourage a player to do this.
We're talking 'bout the explanation of a power that you don't know so well.

The Glyphstone
2010-10-26, 09:06 AM
I wouldn't call it cheating unless you also banned the players from discussing anything related to the game in between sessions. After all, the characters don't actually have a week or two weeks to plan their tactics for battling the red dragon whose lair they just stumbled into by accident, they have maybe six to twelve seconds that might be taken up running. There has to be a certain disconnect between the character and the player at some point.

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 09:10 AM
Personally, I'll ask for help making a character when I already have a concept in mind. Most of the time, the answers I get improve the utility of my concept without killing my immersion. I won't go in between encounters or during encounters, as I prefer to figure out things on my own. But I don't consider it cheating to do so, if that's the way you roll. It's simply using all of your available resources.

Zaydos
2010-10-26, 09:11 AM
I will point out that looking at the books to see a monster's stats go far beyond what a Knowledge skill is supposed to be able to reveal (for example CR 4 carnage demons have DC 24: A carnage demon's fists can pound through almost any material. The more carnage demons present the more powerful their attacks become; no mention of their Will save being +3 and all the various possible results don't tell which energy types its resistant to but only that it is to most of them).

So on the OP's topic, which was asking for advice on overcoming monsters, you can't really say "I have +30 (or +40, or +50) in Knowledge (the Planes) I should know everything about a balor like what its Will save and Spell Resistance are." (actually +30 in Knowledge the planes is just enough that on average you should know it has tanar'ri traits which is a stupidly broken part of how the knowledge skills work)

Psyx
2010-10-26, 09:12 AM
Well, yeah, my first thought was "why would you end a session in mid-combat?"

I'd rather not, but my gaming friends have jobs and families. That means that sometimes we just have to stop.



As to not playing characters who know things that you as a player don't, thanks, I think I'll pass on playing a commoner. Yes, I could spend hours poring over game books and letting my children starve, OR I could act like a member of a social species and just ask someone who knows.

Seriously; I don't see it as expecting too much for my players to know the rules for their own characters. If you don't want to trawl through books and constantly reference them - don't play a character that demands it, because it slows things down during the session. We have a player at the moment who still hasn't grasped the concept that playing a wizard means that as soon as your turn ends, you start looking up your blag for NEXT turn. Instead he sits there telling everyone what to do for ten minutes until it gets to his initiative count, when he starts looking up what spell to cast. /froth.
So yes: I do sort of expect people to try to get to grips with the rules to a decent degree, and if they are struggling then to first turn to the group.

My major bugbear is less rules based and more story-based. 'What do we do now/who did the murder?' type queries. Again: I don't write adventures so that lazy players can go and ask the entire word for solutions. If I can be bothered to write a adventure, then they should be bothered to play it, instead of playing it by proxy.



More importantly, why is it "thwarting"? It's not the GM's game.

It seems that often the topics are about very Player Vs. GM games, with the players looking for 'an edge' over a belligerent GM. I think that someone coming to the Net for tactical advice in such a situation has perhaps already missed the crux of the problem.



Presumably you also do not set problems for you to solve. If the players can't do it, why can't they ask for pointers from an outside party? It might just point them in the right direction - there's no reason that they have to follow the advice given to a letter.

Because it's cheating in my eyes. I don't ask them to do anything that they can't do. If they are genuinely utterly stumped, then their characters face those repercussions. I don't get to 'phone a friend' half-way through a car-crash IRL in order to ask them what do do next, and I find the concept of doing such in-game to be a poor one, and one that breaks the third wall. It's also going to strip away my player's sense of accomplishment to a degree.



Wait, it's cheating to play the same module twice?

/Aghast

It certainly would be to do so without informing the GM.

I would never dream of playing the same adventure twice, and nor would anyone I know. I recently had a player drop out for three weeks when he realised he'd read the scenario I was running, and didn't want to spoil things inadvertently for himself or anyone else.
Maybe it's different if all you are doing is killing stuff, but in any puzzle or cerebral game it's decidedly not cricket.



Yeah... except most people spoiler such things.

Some people do. And some people don't. And some people think it's clever to drop 'vague' hints that aren't even remotely vague. We've all seen it, I'm sure.
It happens at least once on every thread. And that's more than enough.



So... new people can never play? Or do they have to buy, read and digest the books before they make their first character? Ok, it makes sense to ask your group for help, but your group might have it wrong or might not know either. The forums are filled with people who know what they're talking about.

Please don't make absurd extensions. If I was running for a new gamer, I'd run a rules-light system. I'm always willing to offer rules and character advice, as are all of my players. I would infinitely prefer players to be advised 'in house', because the Internet is not familiar with our house rules, party composition, or play style. The forums are full of people who have no idea about the specifics of any house-game that they are not a member of. I would be singularly unimpressed -as a player or a GM- if a new player went off without discussing the matter, asked the Net for advice, and came in with some optimised PC which uses rules, source-books and spells that we don't use, or broke any of the unwritten 'truce' agreements that groups use.



If you ask for help on the internet you will get responses which quote your chance of success based on the monsters stats.
I.e. it ends up the same as looking up the monster in the book.
Now when you say it's not cheating to ask for help; would you also say that it's not cheating to look up the monster's stats?

Good point, well made.

Coidzor
2010-10-26, 09:24 AM
I'd rather not, but my gaming friends have jobs and families. That means that sometimes we just have to stop. So, because they're busy you expect them to either dedicate their time to reading through a small library or play a build that is core only? Why?


Seriously; I don't see it as expecting too much for my players to know the rules for their own characters.

And yet you want to prevent them from a completely legitimate avenue of learning the rules for their characters. Why?


If you don't want to trawl through books and constantly reference them - don't play a character that demands it, because it slows things down during the session.

1. You don't have to constantly reference books in the middle of a session in order to use them in a build. 2. Grapple rules are core and still bog sessions down even when people know them. Also, Wizards are Core.


We have a player at the moment who still hasn't grasped the concept that playing a wizard means that as soon as your turn ends, you start looking up your blag for NEXT turn. Instead he sits there telling everyone what to do for ten minutes until it gets to his initiative count, when he starts looking up what spell to cast. /froth.
So yes: I do sort of expect people to try to get to grips with the rules to a decent degree, and if they are struggling then to first turn to the group.

Ok, deciding what to do on a round to round basis is a different gripe that you haven't drummed into this guy yet. Also, this guy is playing a WIZARD. That is, a core class, I know I said it already but it bears repeating. He doesn't even need to reference anything outside of the PHB in order to bog down a combat with the options he has. So why allow him to do that when you clearly are bothered by the time wasting each combat but forbid your players to discuss D&D in a forum (like you're doing now)?


It's also going to strip away my player's sense of accomplishment to a degree. Apparently they're adults and should be capable of making that decision for themselves.


Maybe it's different if all you are doing is killing stuff, but in any puzzle or cerebral game it's decidedly not cricket.

There are published adventures which are cerebral? Really.


The forums are full of people who have no idea about the specifics of any house-game that they are not a member of. I would be singularly unimpressed -as a player or a GM- if a new player went off without discussing the matter, asked the Net for advice, and came in with some optimised PC which uses rules, source-books and spells that we don't use, or broke any of the unwritten 'truce' agreements that groups use.

Well, either you let them know about your house rules in which case they ignored them for whatever reason or you didn't tell them about your house rules and so it's not really any different from any other non-valid build that has to be thrown out or redone. And if you didn't even forewarn them that there's houserules then you have only yourself to blame for getting angry. :smallannoyed:

Amphetryon
2010-10-26, 09:31 AM
I cannot help but wonder at the motivations of posters to this thread and forum, who would actively discourage players in their campaigns from coming to a D&D forum to discuss a campaign, concept, or rule....

Zaydos
2010-10-26, 09:39 AM
I cannot help but wonder at the motivations of posters to this thread and forum, who would actively discourage players in their campaigns from coming to a D&D forum to discuss a campaign, concept, or rule....

Because the OP said nothing about discussing a campaign, concept, or rule; but specified that he was talking about asking how to beat a monster.

Tvtyrant
2010-10-26, 09:43 AM
Let me put it this way: Until the Batman guide was written a lot of people played their wizards as straight blasters, and most people wouldn't have invented Pun-Pun. There are a few people whose mastery of the rules is such that asking their advice about anything is tantamount to cheating, because they break the game. So yes?

On the otherhand, look at some of the posts: "The DM threw a Balor at us at level 11! Help!"
"I'm completely behind my party members, how do I catch up?"
"Say I wanted to play something for flavor reasons that sucks, can you make it suck less. I am already in an optimized group"


A lot of the questions people ask are because their game at home has glaring flaws (TPK about to happen, your useless and feel the game isn't fun, your not an optimizer and your group is) and rather then whine to the DM they go online and ask a whole group of people to help them so they can cherry pick from the answers. If I wanted to play a bardic monk I would post on here, there is no way that one person alone can come up with a solution that can play next to a straight Druid (unless said person is one of the aforementioned Pun-Pun makers). So no, I think in most cases its completely valid.

Coidzor
2010-10-26, 09:47 AM
Because the OP said nothing about discussing a campaign, concept, or rule; but specified that he was talking about asking how to beat a monster.

Though it has since... broadened.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-10-26, 09:50 AM
Because the OP said nothing about discussing a campaign, concept, or rule; but specified that he was talking about asking how to beat a monster.

Actualy he said Challange X which could be a monster or could be a trap or a puzzle.

Thrawn183
2010-10-26, 09:51 AM
It also depends on the level of the character. If someone has been adventuring for two months, there's a good chance that they won't know much about the craziness that exists (at least, some new craziness that hasn't made it into folklore yet). If someone is level ten and has in character been adventuring for years, you can bet that they've spent a lot of time at taverns talking to other adventurers, refining their techniques.

Honestly, this forum is kind of like a giant inn where adventurers can meet up over a flagon of ale and regale each other with tales great and terrible foes.

I think I will refer to the forum as The Order of the Stick Inn from now on actually.

FelixG
2010-10-26, 09:52 AM
I cannot help but wonder at the motivations of posters to this thread and forum, who would actively discourage players in their campaigns from coming to a D&D forum to discuss a campaign, concept, or rule....

Because some people like to have Absolute power!!! :smallyuk:

But really its likely a knee jerk reaction being afraid of players realizing there is a community and optimizing their characters thus becoming overpowered.

My RL group accused me of cheating after i talked to a few of my online friends on how to build a good tripping build with a fighter, not even high level of optimization and they freaked out because no one had ever considered optimization before :smallsigh:

So now i dumb down my characters when they run games so i dont get yelled at XD

Earthwalker
2010-10-26, 09:53 AM
For me it’s a difficult question to answer.
See it all depends on what questions are asked from the online community.
A question like, I am playing a fighter how can I be more usful to the group I am in. I don’t see a problem with that question.
But if the question is, me and my team of A,B and C is taking on a monster X. How can we win.
That is crossing the line for me. When you start getting answers back of, well X is weak to these spells. It has a save of this so its weak here. You need to get B to cast spell Y.
This isn’t so much consulting the community I object to but players learning and using knowledge their characters have no access too. This is the problem for me, it pushes too far past the metagaming line for me.

Zaydos
2010-10-26, 09:55 AM
Though it has since... broadened.

Actually it has mostly broadened on the side of people trying to say "there's nothing wrong with that" using examples of asking for advice in building a character as the same which it is not, by any means.

When I have players having trouble building a concept they want to play I will tell them to ask here, or ask on their behalf. If my PCs asked me how to beat a monster that would be different. I wouldn't look up a monster's stats for another person's game, and would try to avoid metagaming it.

elpollo
2010-10-26, 10:50 AM
I would never dream of playing the same adventure twice, and nor would anyone I know. I recently had a player drop out for three weeks when he realised he'd read the scenario I was running, and didn't want to spoil things inadvertently for himself or anyone else.
Maybe it's different if all you are doing is killing stuff, but in any puzzle or cerebral game it's decidedly not cricket.

Really? 'Cause I know quite a few players (and I'm sure many others do - I believe the Bradford Players (http://yog-sothoth.com/wiki/index.php/Horror_on_the_Orient_Express_Game_Audio_Recording) who do some excellent Call of Cthulhu podcast-y things have previously played through some of the games they're playing, yet still having fun [and it's fun to listen to. Hence the link] ) who enjoy replaying big ol' campaigns, particularly the very famous ones a la Horror on the Orient Express/Masks of Nyarlathotep etc. With a good GM things never turn out the same, and if the campaign's enjoyment hinges on figuring out a logic puzzle then it's not a very good campaign.

Amphetryon
2010-10-26, 10:59 AM
Because the OP said nothing about discussing a campaign, concept, or rule; but specified that he was talking about asking how to beat a monster.
Not quite. The OP said he objected to players coming online to get help with defeating "[x challenge]", where the nature of the challenge is left open-ended. Beating a monster is an example of such a challenge, but I see nothing in the OP that restricts the nature of [x challenge] exclusively to a monster. I'd argue instead that by phrasing it as he did, the OP was referencing a larger set of parameters than 'beat a monster.'

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-26, 11:01 AM
In general, it is hard to "cheat" in RPGs by looking up information - whether from books, the Internet, or from other people.

Clear Cheating
- Reading the module your DM is running
- Reading the DM's books in games where this is against the rules (e.g. Paranoia)
- Reading your DM's notes

Bad Form
- Looking up the answers to riddles posed in-game
- Using OOC resources to determine major courses of actions (e.g. battle strategies, castle building)

"Bad form" offenses are usually distasteful from a RP standpoint, but really the DM shouldn't be making these sorts of activities the lynchpin for a campaign. It's just too easy to "cheat" in this fashion and, more importantly, if the Players are seeking outside advice here, figuring out the challenge on their own was never something they would have enjoyed.

Some people (like me!) love designing strategies for Big Deals (e.g. the invasion of nations, the toppling of regimes) and would never ask anyone outside the game for advice - where's the fun of that? Likewise, I know that my current Players don't enjoy such scenarios (confirmed by last night's disasterous frontal assault on a Gnoll fortification :smallfrown:) so I never place them in the sort of scenarios where complex strategic planning is requried for success.

Psyx
2010-10-26, 11:08 AM
My opinion is it depends on the character.
If a character has high wisdom/int I generally don't have a problem with looking up solutions to puzzles or asking online community for help.

Have you asked your GM if it's ok? Personally I'd NOT be happy with a player who -between sessions- 'solved' an IC puzzle by asking the Net.


So, because they're busy you expect them to either dedicate their time to reading through a small library or play a build that is core only? Why?

Because a player who does not know the rules for their own character slows the game down for everyone else. It has a wider impact on the game.
People who don't want to read the rules back-to-back play simple-to-run characters, for everyone's sake. Watching someone faff around for 15 minutes picking what spell to cast this round is disruptive and annoying for the rest of the group. Although this is kind of off-the-original topic.


And yet you want to prevent them from a completely legitimate avenue of learning the rules for their characters. Why?

That's not the original topic, though. The topic was people asking advice for IC issues, not rules issues. Two separate things.
And again: Players should first turn to their gaming group, not the Internet.


There are published adventures which are cerebral? Really.

Outside of D&D; yes. There are lots.


I cannot help but wonder at the motivations of posters to this thread and forum...

Obviously I'm evil.
Or maybe I just want them to:

a) Ask their friends first, so that their friends are aware of the issue and able to best address it, and to be able to deal with it from their own perspective.
b) Solve problems on their own and stand on their own two feet.
c) Not cheat. I consider asking advice on IC puzzles, published scenarios and 'how to beat X monster' to be cheating. Other GMs might not. Their game - their rules, my game - my rules.


But really its likely a knee jerk reaction being afraid of players realizing there is a community and optimizing their characters thus becoming overpowered.

No it's not. It's a matter of ethics, at least as far as game -rather than rules- -specific questions are concerned.



Really?

No. I just completely made that paragraph up. :smallconfused:
Yes: Really. I want NEW challenges and NEW problems. I would not enjoy playing a scenario twice, and I would feel that I was 'cheating' in some way.

Amphetryon
2010-10-26, 11:18 AM
a) Ask their friends first, so that their friends are aware of the issue and able to best address it, and to be able to deal with it from their own perspective.
b) Solve problems on their own and stand on their own two feet.
c) Not cheat. I consider asking advice on IC puzzles, published scenarios and 'how to beat X monster' to be cheating. a) Asking friends IRL is okay, but asking virtual acquaintances over the 'net is not? Even if they're on a 'friends' list? Even if the player knows the person IRL and is just separated by distance - like a former player who moved, or an old college buddy?

b) How is solving a problem on their own accomplished via A? Is asking a friend the same thing as solving a problem on their own, or is it mutually exclusive? If it's the same thing, see a). If it's mutually exclusive, then one of these answers is not allowed, but both are suggested options....

c) If asking advice is cheating, then a) is not allowed, yet is your primary suggestion...

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-26, 11:21 AM
Actually it has mostly broadened on the side of people trying to say "there's nothing wrong with that" using examples of asking for advice in building a character as the same which it is not, by any means.

When I have players having trouble building a concept they want to play I will tell them to ask here, or ask on their behalf. If my PCs asked me how to beat a monster that would be different. I wouldn't look up a monster's stats for another person's game, and would try to avoid metagaming it.

This is an important distinction. I don't ever recall personally seeing any threads like "solve this mystery for me" as Psyx has suggested. There are a few "what do we do now" questions occasionally but most of the quest-related threads (as opposed to build or mechanics-based threads) tend to be more like "we're all about to be TPK'd from this hard encounter, help!" or "I'm going to be doing [this thing] [at some point] what would be a good way about it." (Which might skirt close to Oracle Hunter's Bad Form, though often when I see those sort of threads, it's because the player is totally lost or wants mechanical suggestions.)

Aside from the first one, I think those are a reasonable things to ask any more experienced player; whether it by your fellow player at the table, your mate who's been playing for years but doesn't play with that group or the wise old grognards of teh internets. And of course, it might not be easy or possible to talk to anyone in your own group during the week due to time constraints or whatever.

I do think would be a rather jerkish move to say "don't use forums for advise ever" which comes across as basically "I don't want you learning things from people and potentially ending up more knowledgable than me." (Not that I think anyone has actually said that. Because most of us here aren't jerks1.)



And I really should have brought this up eariler (and shame on the rest of you for not saying it, either!), but the OP's analogy with trivia quiz night is a poor one, since D&D is emphatically not a contest that you can win or lose. It ain't a competition. (Or shouldn't be, at any rate.)



1I'm evil, but I'm not a jerk about it2.

2Okay, I AM, just not about this specific issue. Killing players3 when they don't behave (OC or IC, I'm not fussed), though, I'm all over that...

3And yes, I really do mean players...

Dr.Epic
2010-10-26, 11:28 AM
Well, time in D&D is not like time in our world. If you want to travel somewhere dozen of miles away it's as simple as the DM saying "You arrive there safely." You've have several hours to think about whatever. And combat (6 seconds of combat) can last ten minutes in our time. It doesn't seem like cheating to me.

Valameer
2010-10-26, 11:30 AM
Wow, what a point of contention! Who knew? Admittedly, I stopped reading the thread after a cetain point of nit-picking... anyway.

Jones, my two copper:

It can be poor form. Similar to reading a FAQ for a game you can't beat, but different. Some videogames you just get stumped on a certain part. Or the game is unclear, and you can't exactly ask it for hints. Then you read a FAQ. Bringing new radical ideas to the table in between sessions can steal a lot of glory from other players, and rob the DM of a good plot. And you can always pester the DM for hints.

Aside from the fact that 50% of the answers you get online will be cheese. :smallsmile:

In DM vs PLAYER games I think coming to the forums becomes natural. You have to be able to out-think your DM, and he's probably on another forum, figuring out how to "set an example of the players, but not make them want to quit." :smallsigh:

I can't say anything about those 'vs' games. We all know we shouldn't play like that, but maybe sometimes it's fun for people. Whatever. Let them have a battle of wits. In that scenario, I think coming to the forums for ammo is alright.

Other times, people ask for help in a scenario that is holding up the game, with an obstinate DM. Like a puzzle or something. It's not great to ask the forums, but honestly, it's not so bad either. Anything to get the plot going again.

Finally, some players come asking for ideas mid-combat, or at any ol' trouble spot. These guys don't realise that conflict is what makes the game interesting, and they seem more set on 'winning' D&D than seeing what their DM has in store for them. This is when it's bad form, since it's taking away from the game. Suddenly your character is blessed with divine knowledge, grabs a candle of invocation, and goes to town?

Nah, it's cheap.

But hey, it's their game. I do feel bad for the DM sometimes. I think DMs should be the ones asking for help on forums. Players have to worry about one character with 22 int. DMs have to worry about thousands.

The internet is a great resource for Dungeon Masters. I know it's improved my DMing.

elpollo
2010-10-26, 12:09 PM
No. I just completely made that paragraph up. :smallconfused:
Yes: Really. I want NEW challenges and NEW problems. I would not enjoy playing a scenario twice, and I would feel that I was 'cheating' in some way.

That was an expression of surprise rather than me thinking you'd somehow got confused, Captain Sarcasm. I am just surprised that you don't think replaying a scenario could lead to new problems, 's'all. Do you never reread books or rewatch films? I find it odd that you can do that (probably) and yet not replay a scenario where things will actually be different.

Psyx
2010-10-26, 12:18 PM
a) Asking friends IRL is okay, but asking virtual acquaintances over the 'net is not? Even if they're on a 'friends' list? Even if the player knows the person IRL and is just separated by distance - like a former player who moved, or an old college buddy?

b) How is solving a problem on their own accomplished via A? Is asking a friend the same thing as solving a problem on their own, or is it mutually exclusive? If it's the same thing, see a). If it's mutually exclusive, then one of these answers is not allowed, but both are suggested options....

c) If asking advice is cheating, then a) is not allowed, yet is your primary suggestion...


Heh. Miscommunication. We're talking cross purposes. It illustrates part of my point quite nicely. I meant asking friends in the context of 'the gaming group'.
To clear up my position:

I view asking anyone outside the gaming group about the specifics of a puzzle/scenario to be decidedly iffy, verging on out-and-out cheating. That obviously doesn't apply to rules queries or character building.

In the case of rules and character building issues, I want the gaming group to be the first people to be asked: Not the internet. I want them voiced in-house because:

a) Internet communication is poor and easily misunderstood. Communication problems could worsen the issue.

b) An answer on the net is almost certainly not going to be as comprehensive as one worked through face-to-face.

c) Fellow players and the GM can give an answer in the correct context. Whereas a net-based answer will be RAW, it might have no bearing on the game. There may be rules or RP restrictions. The Net answer might only confuse matters more.

d) Perhaps most critically is that the question raises awareness of the issue. If other players contribute to answering a query, they know that the doubt exists and can elect to be more patient with the player who is struggling and to assist them. The GM can consider if he wants to simplify the rule or make adjustments.

All of these are good reasons to ask your gaming group first. Always.

To address you point 'B', I would consider a player asking a friend not in the gaming group about the specifics of a puzzle to be pretty much as bad as asking the Net. The only redeeming factor is that one person is a lot less likely to be able to reel of an answer than the whole Internet.
To point 'C': Asking advice on scenarios/puzzles/how do I beat X outside the group is - IMHO- cheating. Asking rules questions outside of the group is not, but it isn't a clever idea: The group needs to be asked. And if nobody around the table understands the rules then the issue once again needs addressing.



Bringing new radical ideas to the table in between sessions can steal a lot of glory from other players, and rob the DM of a good plot. And you can always pester the DM for hints.

Concur.
If the players are utterly STUMPED, then the thing to do is to ask the GM. That way the GM is aware of the issue, can throw the players a bone, and adjust matters. If -every time the players are given a stupidly difficult puzzle- they go away, get the answer off the net and 'solve' it, then the GM is going to think that the players have got a handle on it, and will continue with similar puzzles or maybe make them harder. This is clearly a waste of everyone's time. Best to talk it through with the GM.


Let them have a battle of wits. In that scenario, I think coming to the forums for ammo is alright.

It's not a battle of wits if you go and ask for help. Well: It's not a battle of YOUR wits...
It's almost a 'my dad can beat up your dad' kind of situation.


Other times, people ask for help in a scenario that is holding up the game, with an obstinate DM. Like a puzzle or something. It's not great to ask the forums, but honestly, it's not so bad either. Anything to get the plot going again.

And then it'll stall again, because the problem hasn't been fixed at all. Best to talk to the GM. If the GM is obstinate and insists on throwing problems at the players that they can't solve on their own and won't change, then maybe there needs to be a GM change, because it's only going to cause more resentment over time.

Psyx
2010-10-26, 12:27 PM
I am just surprised that you don't think replaying a scenario could lead to new problems, 's'all. Do you never reread books or rewatch films? I find it odd that you can do that (probably) and yet not replay a scenario where things will actually be different.

I game primarily for mental stimulation and creative thinking reasons. I enjoy other aspects of gaming of course, but problem-solving is a major one. Replaying a scenario removes that, as well as any suspense regarding the story.
I'd also feel that I was diminished the fun of other people around the table who hadn't played through a scenario before. And I'd feel like I was 'cheating'.
Additionally, I am normally the group-lead. Which means that I'll be steering a lot of a story that I've already steered before. It's dull.

And no: I very seldom re-read fiction, except for Terry Pratchett, which I re-read once every few years for the humour value. Same goes for films, generally. I like new experiences, not re-runs.

Tvtyrant
2010-10-26, 12:58 PM
Okay, lets go over the points being made here:

People for it:
1. If someone with less time/knowledge of the rules wants to still play a viable character they should be able to go online and get help with it.
2. A lot of the "I have a problem" ones are about avoiding TPK's or that the person feels out of their depth.
3. Most of the examples of what is cheating sounds hypocritical when compared to the arbitrary rulings by the people against of what is not cheating.

People against:
1. It implys horrible levels of meta-gaming, which they are against.
2. A DM makes challenges for particular players, and is shafted if the challenge is blown over by 300 people working out an easy solution to it.
3. If a player cannot deal with a problem by themselves they should have to face the repercussions of that.

The basic disagreement is whether the game is supposed to be authentic or not. Players for using the internet frequently bring up TPK examples, because they view the loss of a character as being a big deal. The people who view it as cheating have argued that said character should in fact die at that point. That's essentially where the argument is.

Ormur
2010-10-26, 05:38 PM
I've asked for advice on this forum about ways of winning a potential fight.

There are few reasons I think this is all right but they are dependant on the campaign in question.

First of all I didn't ask in the middle of a fight but because my character had reason to believe that he'd face this monster in the future. He had some time to prepare for it, not to mention his considerable intellect. Getting outside help and spending a lot of time figuring this out was what I was doing both in and out of character.

Second I don't view this as me thwarting the DM because I really doubt the DM is leading us thought his carefully scripted adventure where he has carefully devised challenges balanced around the players only reacting to them while playing.
He has confessed that a lot of what we do is completely unexpected and that there is no guarantee the challenges we face are level appropriate. I actually think it's a good thing, probably common to many DMs that they are mostly reactive. They respond to the actions of the characters whether they had any help planning them or not. The players aren't the only ones that can draw on the power of the collective minds of the internet. Is it cheating for the DM to ask how better to deal with his players?

In the end I must also say that I got some useful tips about a potential encounter but in actually playing out the session we managed to avoid it by a trick that I mostly came up with myself. Perhaps the DM never intended for us to fight in the first place.

I just wouldn't presume that the DM is somehow all knowing and that a bit of outside tactical insight will screw up his plans. It might just as well prevent a non-intended TPK resulting from a too tough encounter. The DM also has all sorts of ways to deal with things while in play and he has information neither the players nor the people on the internet have.

If every combat was for some reason interrupted allowing the players to constantly ask for advice and that would allow them to play in an unrealistically tactically perfect way it would end up as an example of frustrating metagaming for the DM. I imagine that players asking for advice will not happen often and only significantly change the result of the encounter from what the DM would want if either he or the players were screwing things up to begin with.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-26, 06:00 PM
As a DM...lets see.

Asking for help about an encounter. Would not mind it at all. They're free to use all the information possible. I own all 3.5 books, and allow any of my players to borrow them between sessions as well. So long as you don't slow the game down pondering things too much, go nuts.

Asking for help with char builds. Nope. Some players are better at it than others. I offer help, and encourage them to work with each other. Having a useless character makes the game less fun.

Asking how to break the game. Worrying. Not the question, the attitude behind the question.

Using builds copied straight off the net. Worrying. A straight copy job instead of advice typically means power is taking priority over everything else. It also may indicate a lack of understanding of it. Adapting an existing build is entirely different, and no prob.

Using info from a thread I've asked players to stay out of when I ask advice: The only one I'd actually consider cheating.

big teej
2010-10-26, 06:10 PM
Considering those are two entirely different scenarios.

But quite the amusing image. I'm currently trying to figure out what sort of visual to pair it with.

xykon and roy on the undead dragon.

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 06:20 PM
As a DM...lets see.

Asking for help about an encounter. Would not mind it at all. They're free to use all the information possible. I own all 3.5 books, and allow any of my players to borrow them between sessions as well. So long as you don't slow the game down pondering things too much, go nuts.

Asking for help with char builds. Nope. Some players are better at it than others. I offer help, and encourage them to work with each other. Having a useless character makes the game less fun.

Asking how to break the game. Worrying. Not the question, the attitude behind the question.

Using builds copied straight off the net. Worrying. A straight copy job instead of advice typically means power is taking priority over everything else. It also may indicate a lack of understanding of it. Adapting an existing build is entirely different, and no prob.

Using info from a thread I've asked players to stay out of when I ask advice: The only one I'd actually consider cheating.

Ditto.

What's also worrying: I find myself agreeing more and more with you, Tyndmyr. :smalltongue:

bloodtide
2010-10-26, 06:32 PM
I don't think it's cheating.

Any player of mine is free to ask away.


But they are warned that the 'wacky online' stuff may not work in a real game.

Emmerask
2010-10-26, 06:36 PM
I may have to ask for advise now and then from my compu-friends on campaigns, but i figure a discussion between 3-4 people over the course of a few days between sessions is about the same as my 23 int megamind can come up with in a round or so.

I think you are seriously overestimating 23 int especially since this 23 int is a character with only partial knowledge of the mechanics while 3-4 people outside the game world will know close to every mechanic and with google they can draw on knowledge of hundreds of people all of which with more knowledge about the system then the player-character would have.

The internet and what people have come up with is more like one int 100 in game guy (god? ^^).

Anyway it kind of is cheating, in the end however I really don´t care how they beat the encounters, I don´t really care about the fights to be honest, the story and the players decisions are what interests me as a dm ^^

If a dm is really interested in how the players fight without the mighty google spell however, just don´t end a session before the end of an encounter?

Thrawn183
2010-10-26, 07:00 PM
Another point to consider: if there is a challenge you don't want the PC's to overcome.... don't let them. As far as I'm concerned, you should only role for things where you really don't know what the result will be ahead of time. If a combat is supposed to be impossible for the characters to win, just say so. It's a lot better than wasting an hour of game time.

kyoryu
2010-10-26, 07:08 PM
Good question. I think whether it's cheating or not depends on two things:

1. Is this a players-vs-DM game? If so, no holds barred. If not, getting (at least some) advice on the internet is a pretty sure way to turn it into a players-vs-DM game.
2. What's the advice asked for? Consider the following questions:

"Hey, what are some useful things I can do as a fighter?"
"Our party is getting torn up whenever we go against creatures with a lot of ranged capability. What can we do to be more effective?"
"We've been fighting a lot of skeleton archers recently. What are some tactics to use against them?"
"Our DM is running module ABC, which has a ton of skeleton archers. We just finished encounter DEF. What's coming up, and what's the best way to handle it?"

There's a pretty clear continuum from not cheating to, well, if not cheating then at least setting up an adversarial relationship with your DM.

It also makes it hard to gauge encounter difficulty - you'll probably be more effective than normal on encounters you're "prepped" for, so either the DM has to assume this prepping and make everything harder (risking party wipe), or end up with trivial, boring encounters whenever the players do "crib."

I guess ultimately, I believe that D&D is not a competitive game between the players and the DM. As such, it's part of the DM's job to make a fun game with appropriate encounters, and when the DM inevitably screws up, to give the players an appropriate "out." While general advice is fine (like the first couple questions I mentioned), the fact that you feel the need to get more specific advice suggests that you don't trust the DM, and that's a sign of a bigger problem in a non-competitive game.

Also, there's an interesting question into *why* players are looking for advice. If it's general advice and optimization because they're excited, that's *awesome*. If it's because they feel the need to "beat" the DM, it's a sign of a bigger problem.

Though as I said, if it really is a competitive, players-vs-the-DM game, pretty much anything should go.

Callista
2010-10-26, 07:36 PM
I don't see why there's such a big argument about this. You're not a professional adventurer; but your character is, and as such he's presumably using the strategy that a professional adventurer would use--not the strategy of a college student in a casual weekend game. Research can make up that gap. Yeah, it's cheating if you read the module or something similar; but come on, everybody knows that. Asking for advice--"We're facing an adult black dragon; how can we outsmart it?"--is not cheating because your character, presumably, has been thinking about how to outsmart black dragons in the weeks you've been playing and the months or years he's been adventuring. That goes triple for intelligent characters and characters whose modus operandi includes being prepared for anything the world can throw at them. And, in any case, the DM can do the same thing, and probably should.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-26, 07:41 PM
Ditto.

What's also worrying: I find myself agreeing more and more with you, Tyndmyr. :smalltongue:

Uh oh. When you find yourself agreeing that the law/chaos axis should be replaced by sane/crazy, and that good/evil should be replaced by loves/hates pie, you'll be ready to be my evil clone.*

*Goatee not included.

Curmudgeon
2010-10-26, 07:50 PM
Generic advice ("Remember to have your character make the appropriate Knowledge check to see what they should know about [Challenge X].") is always appropriate.

More particular advice to help with general issues (such as "I've never played a [whatever] before, and I don't know how a [whatever] should approach this kind of challenge.") is usually appropriate.

Specific questions ("My DM has us facing a [specific challenge]; what's the best way for a [specific character] to triumph?") should be treated with respect for the DM involved: i.e., with appropriate vagueness.

Callista
2010-10-26, 08:12 PM
If you're playing a dumb character, you can always advise the smart character's player. I'm not fond of low-INT characters personally, but if I do play one, that's what I do. I realized this when I had my average-INT barbarian answering riddles because in RL I was the best in that group at riddles, while the high-INT rogue just sat there; it was just too jarring and didn't fit into the character, and I had to make up an excuse about the character having played riddle games as a child.

Emmerask
2010-10-26, 08:18 PM
I don't see why there's such a big argument about this. You're not a professional adventurer; but your character is, and as such he's presumably using the strategy that a professional adventurer would use--not the strategy of a college student in a casual weekend game. Research can make up that gap.


If the d&d system would be anywhere near as complex as the real world then you would have a point, however it is a system with very few variables is comparison, thus the avg college student becomes a quite capable adventurer.




And, in any case, the DM can do the same thing, and probably should.


If you play a game of DM vs Players or you he wants to start an arms race then sure. Otherwise not really :smallwink:

Trundlebug
2010-10-26, 08:25 PM
Cheating? No. Make you a good gamer? No.

Same thing with people who use game guides for everything. They can't do it on their own. Only weakens them in the long run. Let them train their stupidity.

Just don't pick them to be on your jeopardy team.

Callista
2010-10-26, 08:47 PM
If you play a game of DM vs Players or you he wants to start an arms race then sure. Otherwise not really :smallwink:That's not the issue--the DM's aim isn't to kill the PCs. If a DM is asking for advice, it's (usually) because they want to make the game more interesting, the enemy's strategies more realistic or interesting to counter, or the gameworld more fun to play with. How fun is it for the players if the enemies are either dropping in one shot or wiping the floor with the party constantly? DMs need advice, too.

JonestheSpy
2010-10-27, 02:07 AM
Well, it's certainly been an interesting discussion. Just to clarify, yes, I was talking about asking for advice about in-game challenges between game sessions, not folks asking for input on character builds and the like (though I tend to think a lot of that is pretty lame as well, for different reasons).

This topic was inspired by a particular thread currently in play, where a player was describing a scenario where they may or may not have to face a powerful monster, with only a a round or two to decide their course of action. In said thread, the possible foe's strengths and weaknesses were discussed and dissected, copious tactical advice was offered relating to the party's abilities, suggestions as to whether to fight, flee, negotiate, etc, etc. This just seems ridiculous to me. I've seen other threads of similar nature, but this is the one that broke the camel's back.

To address a few points:



Sounds to me like you're playing a game of DM vs players instead of DM for players.

No, it's DM and players, as opposed to DM and internet.



I may have to ask for advise now and then from my compu-friends on campaigns, but i figure a discussion between 3-4 people over the course of a few days between sessions is about the same as my 23 int megamind can come up with in a round or so.


A lot of versions of this answer came up, but although it has a certain amount of logic, it really doesn't fly with me. I mean, Einstein is one of the most brilliant people anyone can think of, but how many folks think his genius would translate from physics to split-second tactical decisions?
The man spent years working on his theories, you know. Just because your high-INT mage can research spells like nobody's business doesn't mean he's a supercomputer who can figure out all the myriad ways of addressing a particular challenge in a few seconds.



He's complaining about things other groups are doing...?

Um...

I'm not even sure how to begin to respond to that.


Yes, I am talking about games other than my own. Why? Because I love gaming, and when I see stuff that to me is totally against the spirit and intent of the game, I want to talk about it.

Does that seem weird? Let me give you another analogy. Let's say we're on a forum discussing basketball. If someone wrote that in their group of friends, they figure that scoring points is the most important part of the game. So if a player is fouled, the team gets to choose whoever they want to make the free throw instead of that player who's been fouled, 'cause they want the guy who is best at free throws making the shot. It doesn't effect anyone else outside that group, but you can bet your bootie that there would be howls of protest and indignation at such a declaration. Why? Think about it.



I despair a bit when I read those threads.

You're not alone, brother.



Have you never been doing something and suddenly had a flash of inspiration for a better way to do it?


Yeah, such a flash is an awesome thing. Being told by other people what to do is not the same. The whole frickin' point is for the players themselves to have such inspirations, not just assume they can get all the advice they need to overcome [X challenge] from the interwebs, hmm?




Clear Cheating
- Reading the module your DM is running
- Reading the DM's books in games where this is against the rules (e.g. Paranoia)
- Reading your DM's notes

Bad Form
- Looking up the answers to riddles posed in-game
- Using OOC resources to determine major courses of actions (e.g. battle strategies, castle building)


"Bad Form" is actually a pretty good way of defining the manner. I agree that "cheating" in a non-competitive game is a little tricky.


Another point to consider: if there is a challenge you don't want the PC's to overcome.... don't let them. As far as I'm concerned, you should only role for things where you really don't know what the result will be ahead of time. If a combat is supposed to be impossible for the characters to win, just say so. It's a lot better than wasting an hour of game time.

No, the thing is the PLAYERS should overcome the challenge - not the internet. Why is this such a difficult concept for some folks?



Also, there's an interesting question into *why* players are looking for advice.


Cheating? No. Make you a good gamer? No.

Same thing with people who use game guides for everything. They can't do it on their own. Only weakens them in the long run. Let them train their stupidity.

I feel that Kyoryu's question is too often answered by Trundlebug. It's not about desperate players intent on avoiding a malicious DM's TPK, just intellectual laziness. A symptom of a much larger attitude of "Don't bother thinking, look it up on the net" that pervades so much of our culture nowadays. I suppose this topic is largely a shout out to the web - JUST TRY THINKING FOR YOURSELF ALREADY!!

You'll probably make mistakes. You'll learn and be smarter for it, even if it means losing a character or two.

Shout outs to Killer Angel, Zaydos, and Earthwalker, btw, for being voices of reason if not specifically quotable.

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 04:26 AM
Uh oh. When you find yourself agreeing that the law/chaos axis should be replaced by sane/crazy, and that good/evil should be replaced by loves/hates pie, you'll be ready to be my evil clone.*

*Goatee not included.

I'm halfway there, then. Loves pie/hates pie is the main moral axis, IMO. Pie haters must be destroyed. :smallbiggrin:

Coidzor
2010-10-27, 04:26 AM
- Reading the DM's books in games where this is against the rules (e.g. Paranoia)

You know something that reeks of bad design? Having a system where you can either be a GM or a player but cannot ever be both. :smallyuk:


That's not the original topic, though. The topic was people asking advice for IC issues, not rules issues.

You seemingly made it about banning players from asking anyone but you mechanical questions with how you worded your response. Hence how I reacted to you.

FelixG
2010-10-27, 04:53 AM
A lot of versions of this answer came up, but although it has a certain amount of logic, it really doesn't fly with me. I mean, Einstein is one of the most brilliant people anyone can think of, but how many folks think his genius would translate from physics to split-second tactical decisions?
The man spent years working on his theories, you know. Just because your high-INT mage can research spells like nobody's business doesn't mean he's a supercomputer who can figure out all the myriad ways of addressing a particular challenge in a few seconds.



Thanks for the response! now one of my own: I dont think Einstein would make split second tactical decisions based on his background, but i think he could work out a math problem fairly quickly if it was in his realm of experience!

Now lets transplant that over to an adventurer, where his realm of experience is dealing with deadly monsters and situations as his day to day job. I think that if he was that intelligent he would be able to figure out the solution much more quickly, more by reflex than anything else. I for one know i dont deal with delving into a red dragons lair as my job, so i dont think i should be expected to know every detail that my character should (especialy when my character is smarter than me) at the drop of a hat.






I feel that Kyoryu's question is too often answered by Trundlebug. It's not about desperate players intent on avoiding a malicious DM's TPK, just intellectual laziness. A symptom of a much larger attitude of "Don't bother thinking, look it up on the net" that pervades so much of our culture nowadays. I suppose this topic is largely a shout out to the web - JUST TRY THINKING FOR YOURSELF ALREADY!!

You'll probably make mistakes. You'll learn and be smarter for it, even if it means losing a character or two.


Now this one i find interesting... particularly this bolded section... This can be related to a few things... as we were already on the topic of Einstein lets use math!

Now, i am sure you could sit down with a pencil and paper and figure out alot of the aspects of math on your own if you had the time and drive to do so... But some people have things that just dont click for them, they seek out TUTORS and TEACHERS to show them these things...

So instead of slamming your head into the desk over and over because you cant figure out a problem you go somewhere and ask for help.

Now lets look at a game, there are people who want to play and have fun, who have jobs, families, obligations and pet hyenas to care for...They may have the drive to learn but not the time to comb through everything. So they can come places, like here, and talk to people who DO know these things and can give them tips and show them how its done!

Whats so wrong with people wanting help to better themselves? As i said before, i partake in discussions with my online friends and i learned optimizing tricks from them, but then i used the basic skills i learned from them to make my own optimized characters and find new tricks i can show others. Why let all of my knowledge fester in my mind when i can come somewhere and help those who ask for it?

Earthwalker
2010-10-27, 05:16 AM
Asking for help mid combat is meta gaming.

Now I have said before DnD is all about Metagaming, the system requires it on some level.

How much metagaming people want in a game differs so weather people feel that the level of metagaming has reached cheating level also differs.

If I was running a book adventure and my players all sat across from me with the same book adventure open and a copy of the monster manual to look up the monsters stats, I would find that a little pointless.

Asking the internet can lead to players (and then characters) having knowledge they shouldnt.

People have also mentioned, I am an adventurer so I asume I have the knowledge about different challenges. This is another pet peeve of mine, you character has knowledge of what you have encountered in play, as well as what knowledge skills your character has.

You wouldn't know about every monster and its stats unless you had a knowledge skill to cover that.

Psyx
2010-10-27, 05:20 AM
I don't see why there's such a big argument about this. You're not a professional adventurer; but your character is, and as such he's presumably using the strategy that a professional adventurer would use--not the strategy of a college student in a casual weekend game.

These kind of answers are striking me as really pale justifications.
Every soldier is not a member of the SAS with the strategic mind of Sun Tzu.
Even if that is actually the case, then if you don't clear it with the GM first, it's still cheating in my eyes. It's like pulling out the MM and reading off the stats mid-fight, because you're 'really clever' or whatever. Some GMs might not mind, but not asking first takes it straight over the 'iffy' line.

Try pulling out a laptop and asking on a forum mid-game and see what the GM says. I'd wager they probably wouldn't appreciate it. What going to forums mid-combat between games is essentially the same thing with the added dishonesty that the GM isn't aware of what is happening. If it is 'fine' then why not do it mid-session? Legitimate behaviour does not need to be obfuscated.

Not only is the 'really clever' character pulling on the might of 200+ brains in 6 seconds flat (if things happened mid-combat), but he's also drawing on their OOC knowledge. Basically: That is not a 23 Int, that is not being a professional adventure. That is horribly meta-gaming with a limp justification tacked on. I can see how in *some* cases things might be justified in that manner, but it certainly isn't a catch-all excuse to dash off to forums between a game to resolve IC problems. and again: not without GM knowledge. If the character really is that clever, then why not ask the GM for a bone?
Where's the character's 15 ranks of 'Tactics' or whatever? Have they not got them? Then the player is -at best- meta-gaming and roleplaying poorly.

As regards puzzles and the old 'I'm Int 23, I can do this" thing: Maybe the puzzle is an abstraction. Maybe the actual puzzle is a lot harder and the GM gave you a simplified one that you 'puny' Int 18 brain can figure out. In that case - once again - going to forums for advice is striding over the 'iffy' line.



Just to clarify, yes, I was talking about asking for advice about in-game challenges between game sessions,

To summarise my position, given the above: It's cheating. No 'I'm clever' justification really excuses it, unless the GM specifically does so. Not telling your GM that you are going to the internet for advice would also be cheating the GM. At very best, it's poor form and a problem that would be better solved by talking to the GM.

If the game is Players Vs. GM then... that doesn't mean no holds barred. It can be a confrontational game, and turning to the Net for advice can still be construed as cheating. I'd be annoyed if -during a game of chess- someone I was playing constantly asked others for advice on the 'phone. I'm playing THEM, not them and 15 friends.

If it's a no-holds-barred confrontational game then if it's consensual... fair enough. If the player is turning to the net in desperation, then instead they should be talking to the GM.



You know something that reeks of bad design? Having a system where you can either be a GM or a player but cannot ever be both.

There are dozens of games where the player's enjoyment is diminished some degree by reading GM guides, for meta-plot reasons. eg: Deadlands, Torg. As a player of both, I never glanced at those tomes, because I didn't want to falsely know what was happening in the main story arc. I wanted to put it together myself. If that meant making mistakes and having it all rather topsy-turvy in my head, then that made things more interesting, as after it was all over we could all sit and discuss with the GM why we had put the puzzle together in the manner which we had.



And you never answered why your rules knowledge is so much holier than that of the forums. Sure, you know your houserules, but unless you've houseruled the game to the point where the books themselves are of only passable use, that doesn't prevent them from getting useful information from others.

Go back and look at why I believe that the game group should be the first port of call. It's about communication and raising awareness that there is an issue. Basic group dynamics. An answer does not exist in a vacuum.



I also like how you again conflated getting advice...

Did you? Awesome. *high five*

Personally; I thought that I was just ranting on a tangent about something that's bugged me recently and din't think it was worth bringin back to the conversation.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-10-27, 05:31 AM
Have you asked your GM if it's ok? Personally I'd NOT be happy with a player who -between sessions- 'solved' an IC puzzle by asking the Net.



Well I am the GM. So Yes I allow it .. Generaly i change the puzzles just enough that they can get most of it but not all. plus all of my players googlefu is wicked weak.

Souhiro
2010-10-27, 05:54 AM
You know... sometimes, a GM made a homebrew system, homebrew world... you know, they very own homemade game.

In my town, a GM of those had a thight grasp on his rules. At first, he made HARD combats and hard situations that ended with the death of many PC. And then, someone with a prodigious memory, managed to memorize almost all the spells and techs that the game had, their costs, their effects... So we started to do our own calculus "He has done a Quadra-Cut three times and burnt 120MP, he must be MP-Drained by now!" "We have dealt him 132 HP, He is about to fall!".

The GM didn't like that we could have tactic info, and he rewamped ALL the Spells and Techs, put the foes some Damage-Reduction Techs and Armor. It didn't stop there. When I said "That 'Huge Fireball' Spell must cost about 75MP, so he will be able to launch just another one" the GM outraged and renamed the spells and techs IN JAPANESE. Since he likes the feel of "Blind Fight" without tactical info


So, we told him, and was quite clear: Blind Battles were appropiate when we were young Lvl-1. But our characters (and ourselves) were veterans. So his chase of what-he-called "Powergaming" was BORING US. And a boring game is a game in the verge of death.



So, My message to the OP is: The Blogs, the Mail Lists and everything are just there now. Use it, and let your players use it, just for the sake of making the game more entertaining. If your players are too powerful for kobolds, then pull ot goblins. If the goblins are fair game, then pull outhobgoblins, or bugbears, or ogres, or trolls. Or better than that, pull out PowerKobolds, and PowerGoblins, and Power-Whatever-it-takes.

I don't think that Surfing the Net is anything near of a cheat, unless you're playing an official module, your players get a copy and read it.


-----

Sorry for my awful grammar. Non native english speaker

Amphetryon
2010-10-27, 08:10 AM
I just feel the need to point this out. A logical extension of the OP's position is that any posting to, or perusing of, forums, chats and message boards devoted to gaming or similar is cheating, since it increases the player's knowledge base without that player having come up with the new ideas and information on his own.

That's an interesting point to make on an internet forum devoted to gaming.

Jack Zander
2010-10-27, 08:27 AM
I asked for advice one time on here. I knew from reliable sources (firsthand experience) that we were going to be facing a golem of some type. We ended the session in town, resting before our attack.

The only thing I asked for was typical tactics and spells that worked on golems, since they all have Spell Immunity and we've never faced a golem before.

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 08:39 AM
I've even asked for optimization advice on here, and I generally don't optimize beyond "how will this feat fit with my background and goals?"

I got the Playground to pimp my Gun Mage for EtCR.

Thrawn183
2010-10-27, 08:54 AM
No, the thing is the PLAYERS should overcome the challenge - not the internet. Why is this such a difficult concept for some folks?


First off, I feel this is very anti-role playing. Characters should be overcoming challenges, not players. In addition, we are talking about getting help with challenges that a party is in the middle of trying to overcome. It's not like these characters can just run home and buy needed items or change what spells they have prepared. The players are stuck with static characters, and are trying to utilize the abilities available to them in the best manner possible.

Take the "kill a Balor" thread. When I first saw it, I assumed that the DM was throwing a foe at the party that they weren't supposed to defeat. Then I realized that between the fact that the party was almost all full casters and that with their having a greater stone golem, they actually did have a chance at victory. Not a very good one perhaps, but real nonetheless. If the DM really didn't want the party to be able to win this fight, he should have just made it three balors and made it clear that the fight wasn't going to be rolled out because there was no way the party could win a stand up fight*.

People don't come to the boards asking for help with easy challenges. They come for help with the really tough ones. Every time, I have to ask myself if the encounter is supposed to be possible to defeat, or if the DM made the stupid mistake of underestimating the party and thought they couldn't beat something they could (a common occurence when your party has full casters, even really powerful enemies can roll ones on saves).

So now we've come full circle. If the challenge was meant to be overcome, or at least possible to overcome, why care if the party wins? It's certainly not like they ran home and grabbed a candle of invocation for crazy shenanigans. They're just using the resources they already brought with them. At the same time, if the party wasn't meant to win, why are you throwing an challenge at the party that they actually do stand a chance at overcoming?

Note* In that case using diplomacy to try and turn the balors against each other, would be really interesting. If the party was successful in that, and chose to try and mop up the survivors, I would roll out the fight.

gdiddy
2010-10-27, 09:13 AM
Is it cheating? No. Some people want help.

Do I do it? No. It let's me fully enjoy the fruits of my labor and feel smugly arrogant that I don't seek other people's help to play make-believe with other adults.

Emmerask
2010-10-27, 09:19 AM
The main problem I see with it is that you give your dm wrong information about your abilities.
The dm who wants to give the party challenging fights now must think that they can "easily" handle a balor with their knowledge of the game.
So next fight he really wants to put the characters to the test but there is no time to cast the mighty-google spell, its all happening in one continues session...

so after the tpk the dm wonders why they handled the balor so well but made so many bad judgments during this fight.

FelixG
2010-10-27, 09:37 AM
The main problem I see with it is that you give your dm wrong information about your abilities.
The dm who wants to give the party challenging fights now must think that they can "easily" handle a balor with their knowledge of the game.
So next fight he really wants to put the characters to the test but there is no time to cast the mighty-google spell, its all happening in one continues session...

so after the tpk the dm wonders why they handled the balor so well but made so many bad judgments during this fight.

Well hopefully after the players are shown different ways of defeating this encounter they will start thinking about their own little tricks they can use...Thats the thing about learning... Once you are shown something you have the ability to expand upon it

They are being shown how to use their existing abilities better, they will be able to use those in a more variety of situations ect.

Psyx
2010-10-27, 09:59 AM
I just feel the need to point this out. A logical absurd extension of the OP's position is...

Fixed!



The main problem I see with it is that you give your dm wrong information about your abilities.

Quite. And if the GM is oblivious to what's occurred, then the next fight may well then be harder because the party handled the 'overwhelming' encounter so well.
It's self-perpetuating and coming about through -basically - a measure of dishonesty which leads to a complete failure of communication.

If you need help because things are too tough, then the GM is the first port of call. I completely fail to understand why it wouldn't be in any non-confrontational game.

If my misses gives me a list of chores to do every week and I'm too busy at work to do them. What do I do? Hire a cleaner to come in and do them when she's not about and hide the fact from her, or talk to her about it?
One of those answers is a good one that aids understanding and leads to a mutually agreed solution and perhaps a lowering of the bar. The other one is only going to cause problems in the long-run, and is essentially dishonest both in that it's hiding the truth of the situation and claiming credit for something that I haven't done.

Psyx
2010-10-27, 10:02 AM
Thats the thing about learning... Once you are shown something you have the ability to expand upon it

Or there's the Pavelovian response: They are hungry for a solution, press some buttons, and get a reward.
So next time they are hungry for a solution; they press the buttons again. No thought involved.

Providing canned answers on a forum doesn't really teach people things. Actual conversation and discussion and working it out for yourself while being given a hint or two would be a far better approach.

Amphetryon
2010-10-27, 10:14 AM
Providing canned answersBack and forth conversation on a forum doesn't really teach people things. Actual conversation and discussion and working it out for yourself while being given a hint or two would be a far better approach.Fixed? There's clearly supposed to be a difference there, but it's apparently about vocal tone and inflection, at this point.

Earthwalker
2010-10-27, 10:33 AM
I have a more specific example to test peoples opinion on if that is acceptable.

If I was a player in group, I wanted to be a demon specilist so I have 10 ranks in knowledge(planes) that I use to get information about demons.

So we start a campaign and no other character has any planar knowledge.

We get into a fight and a gate opens, with demons spilling out of it.

First some minor demons appear and after rolling a knowledge check I explain in character what to expect from these guys.

We kill them quickly and see a Balor coming thru the portal.

I roll my planes check and fail. I have no information on the Balor. The game session ends there.

In the week between session another player comes onto these forums and asks for ways to beat a balor, in the process is told thier strngths, weaknesses and how to best deal with them. Giving them must more information then my character would get even on a successful roll.

The next session starts and in character the player who went to the interweb for help starts explain what we can do to take down the Balor.

Should my character and the GM feel cheated by this ?

I think its the same if in the week gap the other player sat down with the monster manual and then came up with the plan.

Psyx
2010-10-27, 10:36 AM
My point that the best way to discuss anything about a game - and gain a full and proper picture of the situation - is in person very much stands.

You extension isn't a 'logical' one at all. It's illogical, especially considering that the OP qualified his point and view later in the thread.

Psyx
2010-10-27, 10:46 AM
I have a more specific example to test peoples opinion on if that is acceptable.


Good example.
To me, that's not acceptable.

As a player, I would feel that I had cheated the GM. I would also feel that I had 'failed' and feel guilty for my dishonesty in having 'failed' but sidestepped the consequences, as well as having extracted a measure of kudos for coming up with a solution that was not mine.

As a GM, I'd consider that my player had used OOC/Meta knowledge. If he'd failed the skill check, then his character shouldn't know those things. If he'd passed it, then it's up to ME as GM to provide information, and that information wouldn't be a specific stat-line or tactical solution.
Next time I was tossing in a similar encounter, I'd change the stats so the 'mystery' monster was vulnerable to something it was previously invulnerable to, and make darned sure that it's 'known' Achilles heel buffed it or similar. That way when the situation occurred the player would be hoist with his own petard.

As a co-player, I'd consider the other player to be... a bit lame, really. They haven't really learned anything, except a reliance on others. I'd much prefer them to talk it through 'in-group' and for us all to live or die by what we thought was a good plan, as opposed to what the Internet thought. If they've got a canned solution from the Net then they've deprived the rest of the party of a measure of fun in some manner.

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 10:47 AM
So reading another person's thread, and then using meta-game knowledge to win?
Unacceptable. The using the meta-game knowledge part, that is. I know all sorts of things I've memorized over the years from monster killing tactics to monster statistics. I would never even think of using them in a game unless the character had the appropriate knowledge (skill or previous experience).

Reading another person's thread about a threat that they are about to face?
Who cares, as long as they aren't using meta-game knowledge that their character does not possess.

JonestheSpy
2010-10-27, 10:50 AM
I just feel the need to point this out. A logical extension of the OP's position is that any posting to, or perusing of, forums, chats and message boards devoted to gaming or similar is cheating, since it increases the player's knowledge base without that player having come up with the new ideas and information on his own.


Yeah, what Psyx said. This is of course a ridiculous mischaracterization of what I wrote. About as "logical" as saying that because I think it's cheating for people to text their friends for answers during a trivia quiz that no one should be allowed to read the newspaper.

FelixG
2010-10-27, 11:08 AM
-Snip-

Should my character and the GM feel cheated by this ?

I think its the same if in the week gap the other player sat down with the monster manual and then came up with the plan.

Why should they feel cheated? Taking an interest in whats going on is a good thing

And what your talking about is a problem more with the disconnect between game time and world time.

Would you feel cheated if the player sat at his job and thought up lots of plans for the encounter? What if he had fought a Balor in a previous game and remembered some of the stuff he did, hes a cheater right?

If anything i would say its the GMs problem for giving them a definite figure and obvious encounter for the next session before ending, its just as easy to say they see a shadow fall over the portal or a figure approaching at a quick speed but not give them details on the encounter.

Amphetryon
2010-10-27, 11:24 AM
Hypothetical example:

Relatively noobish players with 10th level characters in a one-off adventure for 10th to 12th level characters. Maybe the DM got the adventure for a present. Whatever. Not all groups go 1st through 20th level straight on. Let's make the characters all human, a straight TWF-Ranger, healbot Cleric, blaster Sorcerer, and archery-based Rogue, just so we have a clear baseline from which to start. Each player spent a couple hours on the internet, reading up on decent choices for his/her character and overall, which the OP says is kosher.

Through the course of the adventure, the characters engage in combat with a gang of Ettins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ettin.htm). CR 8, well within their capabilities. However, a combination of bad luck on the players' part and openly rolled crits on the part of the DM takes the Ranger down into negative HP, with the Cleric too far away to cure him this round. DM has let it be known that monsters will actively go after downed characters for his view of 'realism.'

Now, the blaster Sorcerer, who did not choose a battlefield control route, nonetheless read some conversations on the 'net describing how BFC can be useful, back when she was deciding on spell selection. She thinks quickly and asks the Cleric if he has any spells that could put a barrier between the downed Ranger and the Ettins. As it happens, the Cleric does have Wall of Stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfStone.htm) prayed for that day, because the players are not yet aware of how to use Rope Trick (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/ropeTrick.htm) for safe overnight stays, and find Wall of Stone useful to protect them as they sleep. Cleric casts Wall of Stone, Ettins can no longer easily kill the downed Ranger, party regroups and manages to overcome the monsters without having any of the characters actually die.

Sorcerer didn't come up with this scenario on her own, but through her (allowed) use of the internet between sessions. Cheating, or no? As I understand the OP, the answer is yes...

JonestheSpy
2010-10-27, 11:32 AM
Sorcerer didn't come up with this scenario on her own, but through her (allowed) use of the internet between sessions. Cheating, or no? As I understand the OP, the answer is yes...

Then you clearly understand nothing I wrote. I am talking about people coming online and wanting people to tell them what to do about a specific challenge that came up the last time they played, that they will have to deal with the next time they get together.

The idea that you can't use tactics you read about previously while in the middle of playing is a gross mischaracterization of my points.

Zaydos
2010-10-27, 11:33 AM
Reading BFC can be useful in combat and going online and saying "How can I beat a pair of ettins?" are not the same thing. The OP specifically mentioned the latter not the former.

ericgrau
2010-10-27, 11:38 AM
I'm tempted to say it's extra information from people who aren't playing the game so ya it's cheating. But a lot of people seem to gain enjoyment out of planning. A large portion of the forums seem to have threads on planning, depending how loose you make the definition. So... I may not particularly like it but it seems like fun and that's the main goal. As long as it doesn't get out of hand and ruin the challenge.

Amphetryon
2010-10-27, 12:02 PM
So, the timing of when you find out information is somehow at the heart of the issue? Creating or reading a thread when you're involved in no games saying 'how does one deal with great big critters in combat?' is acceptable research, but it's not okay to do once the game is underway? Reading the SRD to figure out uses of spells and tactics is a valid and sound use of your time between rounds, but using a handbook someone wrote online to accomplish the same thing is not? :smallconfused:

Emmerask
2010-10-27, 12:09 PM
So, the timing of when you find out information is somehow at the heart of the issue? Creating or reading a thread when you're involved in no games saying 'how does one deal with great big critters in combat?' is acceptable research, but it's not okay to do once the game is underway? Reading the SRD to figure out uses of spells and tactics is a valid and sound use of your time between rounds, but using a handbook someone wrote online to accomplish the same thing is not? :smallconfused:

I wouldn´t say the timing, its more the intention behind it.
In one case you want to learn something about the system, what is effective and what is not new possibilities etc.
In the other case you want others to solve your problem in a game.

In my experience people who chose the latter will not learn all that much they just apply ready made answers to the problem.

JonestheSpy
2010-10-27, 12:13 PM
So, the timing of when you find out information is somehow at the heart of the issue? Creating or reading a thread when you're involved in no games saying 'how does one deal with great big critters in combat?' is acceptable research, but it's not okay to do once the game is underway? Reading the SRD to figure out uses of spells and tactics is a valid and sound use of your time between rounds, but using a handbook someone wrote online to accomplish the same thing is not? :smallconfused:

At this point dude, I can only think you're being deliberately difficult here. I'm not sure what the motivation is, but I've stated my case as clearly as I can repeatedly and you keep coming back with these weird twistings of my point.

Everyone else seems to get it, whether they agree or not, so I think trying to explain it anymore to you is a fruitless exercise.

Amphetryon
2010-10-27, 12:17 PM
Yes, I am talking about games other than my own. Why? Because I love gaming, and when I see stuff that to me is totally against the spirit and intent of the game, I want to talk about it.
You've flat-out told me - and those who agree with the idea that doing research to respond better to challenges in a game is not cheating - that I'm doing it wrong, by the above quote. I'm trying to comprehend how to do it right.

Emmerask
2010-10-27, 12:28 PM
You've flat-out told me - and those who agree with the idea doing research to respond better to challenges is a game is not cheating - that I'm doing it wrong, by the above quote. I'm trying to comprehend how to do it right.

Okay, lets try this answer:

If you go to a d&d forum with the intention to learn better tactics then that is perfectly fine, you take just another source of information that is more condensed then parsing through all the books and essentially reinventing the wheel.

If you go to a forum, create a topic (or find one very very similar) about an encounter you are facing atm ie we are attacked by a balor our group setup is xyz I have abc spells what can I do?
Then that is essentially cheating you are not trying to learn something about your character or the system, you want a ready made answer to a problem you are facing.


To put it another way you learn for math, therefore you go to a math forum and ask some questions how to solve problem x etc.

Or you go to a math forum with your phone during a test and ask how to solve a³ + b² = 13b
There is a distinct difference between the two :smallwink:

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 01:08 PM
So reading another person's thread, and then using meta-game knowledge to win?
Unacceptable. The using the meta-game knowledge part, that is. I know all sorts of things I've memorized over the years from monster killing tactics to monster statistics. I would never even think of using them in a game unless the character had the appropriate knowledge (skill or previous experience).


This. Exactly this. One of the things that good roleplayers learn to do is to make suboptimal choices, because it's what their character would do.

Roll with it, and enjoy the story. Sometimes things don't go your way, and that's a big part of what makes stories entertaining. The Empire Strikes Back was two hours of things *not* going the protagonists' way.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-27, 03:42 PM
These kind of answers are striking me as really pale justifications.
Every soldier is not a member of the SAS with the strategic mind of Sun Tzu.
Even if that is actually the case, then if you don't clear it with the GM first, it's still cheating in my eyes. It's like pulling out the MM and reading off the stats mid-fight, because you're 'really clever' or whatever. Some GMs might not mind, but not asking first takes it straight over the 'iffy' line.

People who do that amuse me. They think all my monsters are straight copy and pastes from the monster manual? Heh. This will probably end badly for them eventually, as they are making decisions based on bad info.


Try pulling out a laptop and asking on a forum mid-game and see what the GM says. I'd wager they probably wouldn't appreciate it. What going to forums mid-combat between games is essentially the same thing with the added dishonesty that the GM isn't aware of what is happening. If it is 'fine' then why not do it mid-session? Legitimate behaviour does not need to be obfuscated.

Because it's ridiculously slow. I dislike laptops for the same reason I dislike cell phones. They're horrible distractions. Forum surfing midgame is like youtube surfing midgame. Bad for reasons that has nothing to do with the content.

JBento
2010-10-27, 03:46 PM
This. Exactly this. One of the things that good roleplayers learn to do is to make suboptimal choices, because it's what their character would do.

Look! It's Stormwind! Long time no see, buddy.

On topic: Cheating, on D&D, is hard to define beyond dieroll and character sheet "adjusting." I think (has it has been seen on the thread) it will be cheating for some people and not for others. However, I don't see ANY difference between a player asking for advice on the current encounter and the GM asking how to deal with player build X.

Slightly on topic, because it has been mentioned: Discussing tactics, between players, during encounters. Some people seem to think this is unacceptable, because they would only have 12 seconds or such. I ask you this then: next time the characters are making a six hour, uneventful trip, would it be acceptable for them to spend six hours of session time (not between sessions) discussing tactics for potential encounters they expect? Because that sounds like a waste of gaming time to me.

Killer Angel
2010-10-27, 03:57 PM
Shout outs to Killer Angel, Zaydos, and Earthwalker, btw, for being voices of reason if not specifically quotable.

I'm with you on this argument! :smallsmile:

The fact is: you can call it the way you want. If you're askin someone how to face a particular situation you're playing currently, it's someone else that's thinking in your place.
If my DM poses a riddle, leaving us a week to solve it, and all I do is asking the solution in a forum, where's my satisfaction? Will my DM be happy, and will give me a reward, knowing that the riddle was resolved by an unknown forumeer that doesn't play his campaign?

Asking the solution to someone else, is possible, and eventually is not "cheating" (you can justify it in game that a character with Int 22 is smarter, etc etc), but it's not the way I like to play.

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 04:13 PM
Look! It's Stormwind! Long time no see, buddy.


Please.

Scenario: Player has read the MM. Character is level 1 noob. The character encounters a monster with a specific weakness, and there is *no* reason that the character should know what that weakness is, even though the player does.

Optimal: Attack the weakness
In-character: Don't attack the weakness

Anyway, it's not a Stormwind fallacy, as that was more specifically about *character* optimization vs. roleplaying, not "not using metagame information".

JBento
2010-10-27, 04:29 PM
Ah, my bad - I thought that choices referred to build options. Statement retracted, with apologies.

On another point, sometimes weaknesses are... glaringly obvious. You're going to try Will instead of Fort against giants, and undead and constructs are just optimal targets for Fort-save effects. Skeletons in particular *look* like they'd be more vulnerable to being crushed (due to having all that empty space), though I admit zombies are befuddling in their DR - even headshots don't work better, seeing as it's DR/slashing, not piercing.

EDIT: Not attack the weakness is not necessarily the in-character thing. It just might be your usual thing anyway... though I'm pretty sure you meant it as "switching modes to target the weakness" anyway, I thought to throw it out there anyway :smallsmile:

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 04:38 PM
Ah, my bad - I thought that choices referred to build options. Statement retracted, with apologies.

On another point, sometimes weaknesses are... glaringly obvious.

No problem. Misunderstandings happen - sorry I wasn't more clear.

And yeah, some weaknesses *are* pretty common sense, which is why I specifically made the scenario that the weakness could not be discerned by the character.

At any rate, some of the best roleplaying I've had the pleasure of doing was with a group that was absolutely anal about not using metagaming concepts. If you were wearing a full helmet on the battlefield, you didn't know about enemies behind you, and they would often deliberately overcompensate for metagaming knowledge by not taking "reasonable" options that just happened to also be relatively effective given the metagame knowledge they had.

Earthwalker
2010-10-28, 03:28 AM
So, the timing of when you find out information is somehow at the heart of the issue? Creating or reading a thread when you're involved in no games saying 'how does one deal with great big critters in combat?' is acceptable research, but it's not okay to do once the game is underway? Reading the SRD to figure out uses of spells and tactics is a valid and sound use of your time between rounds, but using a handbook someone wrote online to accomplish the same thing is not? :smallconfused:

It isn't as such about timing. I said that it was cheating and I will try to explain why and for more information I will have to describe details of my play style.

We always (well so far) have played DnD from level 1 going up.
From level 1 characters know nothing about adventuring, as a player you can asume your character knows about creatures from the character background, plus information his knowledge skills give him.
As we play and level up the characters and players learn about more creatures, you as a player can use this knowledge.
If you come against a new threat a character can use a knowledge check to see if you know about this new threat, if he fails the character does not know. (so the player shouldn't act like the character does know)
You can tell me your character is studying different monsters and I will tell you to add knowledge skill points to your character when you level up, I will not hand the player the monster manual and say read what you like.

In this environment going online and asking for help to kill the next encounter (saying what the threat is) and then find out all its abilities and weakness, then using that knowledge to destroy the threat is cheating for me.

I am not saying going to forums is cheating, or asking for help with a better build. Or a whole host of other things I am saying asking for help for a certain encounter and gaining knowledge your character could never have and using it in game is cheating.

I would feel the same way if I was GMing and annouced the party could see a chained man up ahead, it doesn't look like he has seen you yet what do you want to do...

Then the players say wait a second, get out all the monster manuals and start thumbing through them till they find out what the creature is and then start making battle plans with that information.

Now this is the way I play, others play that what a player knows about the world, the character knows. In that kind of game going online and asking how to kill a certain monster is fine.

Psyx
2010-10-28, 05:29 AM
Look! It's Stormwind! Long time no see, buddy.

/facepalm
Any moment, someone is going to say 'strawman' too: Another forum catchphrase. After all: There's comedy in repetition...



...it will be cheating for some people and not for others.


And the arbitrator of that is the GM and the other players. So if they are not informed that OOC forum advice has been sought, then it does -to my mind- boldly stride over the 'cheating' line. Or at least 'very rude, and very bad form'. It's akin to playing 'cheating rules' in 'Illuminanti' and without telling anyone else that you're playing them.

Some GMs might not have a problem with it. But they need to at least know about it. Basically: It's ok to cheat if everyone agrees that it is.



would it be acceptable for them to spend six hours of session time (not between sessions) discussing tactics for potential encounters they expect? Because that sounds like a waste of gaming time to me.

Sounds quite entertaining to me, though! A few hours of IC hypothetical discussions seems like some good rolplaying time.

Ok... maybe not 6 hours though.

I'd be quite seriously worried if players were meeting up for 6 hours between sessions to talk about a strategy! I'd point them in the direction of beer, sunshine, fresh air, open roads and members of the opposite gender!


They think all my monsters are straight copy and pastes from the monster manual?

I always avoid reading the MM and similar sections in games, so as I don't ruin my own enjoyment. If I'm running then I might look something specific up, but I generally want to enjoy the surprise of something new, and don't want to have to artificially blinker myself too much.


you can justify it in game that a character with Int 22 is smarter, etc etc

You can justify it to yourself that way, sure. But unless the GM consents and agrees with that justification, I very much consider it cheating. Re: My puzzle abstraction comment earlier.



Why should they feel cheated? Taking an interest in whats going on is a good thing

There's a big difference between 'being interested in maths' and 'walking into an exam with the answers'. Going and asking for specific help is not showing an interest in what's going on. In psychological terms the player is only interested in the over-all result ('winning') and the accolade that accompanies it, and has no real interest in the task itself.

'I like racing' and 'I like winning races' are two very different things.



Would you feel cheated if the player sat at his job and thought up lots of plans for the encounter?

No; because in that case the player IS showing an interest in the task. And they're taking risks because they are basing their plans on their own suppositions.
Unless of course the player hauled out the MM and looked up stats. Then I would indeed consider it cheating.



What if he had fought a Balor in a previous game and remembered some of the stuff he did, hes a cheater right?


He's a bad role-player. That's not cheating, although many groups would look dimly upon it.

Amphetryon
2010-10-28, 07:16 AM
It isn't as such about timing. I said that it was cheating and I will try to explain why and for more information I will have to describe details of my play style.

We always (well so far) have played DnD from level 1 going up.
From level 1 characters know nothing about adventuring, as a player you can asume your character knows about creatures from the character background, plus information his knowledge skills give him.
As we play and level up the characters and players learn about more creatures, you as a player can use this knowledge.
If you come against a new threat a character can use a knowledge check to see if you know about this new threat, if he fails the character does not know. (so the player shouldn't act like the character does know)
You can tell me your character is studying different monsters and I will tell you to add knowledge skill points to your character when you level up, I will not hand the player the monster manual and say read what you like.

In this environment going online and asking for help to kill the next encounter (saying what the threat is) and then find out all its abilities and weakness, then using that knowledge to destroy the threat is cheating for me.

I am not saying going to forums is cheating, or asking for help with a better build. Or a whole host of other things I am saying asking for help for a certain encounter and gaining knowledge your character could never have and using it in game is cheating.

I would feel the same way if I was GMing and annouced the party could see a chained man up ahead, it doesn't look like he has seen you yet what do you want to do...

Then the players say wait a second, get out all the monster manuals and start thumbing through them till they find out what the creature is and then start making battle plans with that information.

Now this is the way I play, others play that what a player knows about the world, the character knows. In that kind of game going online and asking how to kill a certain monster is fine.
How I usually see this happen in actual D&D games:
D&D noobie - who has never played - joins a new campaign. Character starts out at level 1 with whatever knowledges his background and skills indicate. Let's make the character a Dwarf Barbarian so we're talking about the same character. I'll assign the default stats, after adjustment, of STR 15 DEX 12 CON 15 INT 8 WIS 14 CHA 8. He sticks 2 ranks in Climb, 2 in Jump, 4 in K(Dungeoneering) to show his background as a cave-dwelling savage barbarian, and 4 ranks in Survival because he has Adventurer Orphan Syndrome and had to make it on his own from a young age. He takes Extra Rage, from Complete Warrior, as his feat because he thinks it's a good strategy for a Barbarian to use. Are we good so far?

DM finds that everyone else in the party decided to be a Dwarf, a Gnome, or an Underfolk from Races of Destiny, and they all have Adventurer Orphan Syndrome. Just for the look of the thing, we'll make the others a Dwarf Cleric, a Gnome Sorcerer, and an Underfolk Rogue. So, he spins a yarn about a multicultural gold mine where the miners dug too deep and unleashed an ancient curse: a vampire. Not terribly original, but whatever. So the first few sessions are trying to escape the haunted mines, fighting off Skeletons and Ghouls and Allips, oh my. The character's wealth was invested in his ancestral Dwarven Waraxe, Daggers, and Hide Armor, and as a complete newbie he didn't pick up a free Club, leaving him without an effective Blunt weapon against skeletons, but he has his friends and they muddle through. Are we still at a plausible scenario for how things work in an actual campaign? The question is not rhetorical; if I've veered off-course from how these things play out in your experience, speak up.

Character levels up. Player inquires about the Deepwarden PrC from Races of Stone, which has skill requirements in which he's already started investing. Maybe he'd had it in mind at the start, maybe he just got the book and wants to use it; in my opinion, it doesn't matter for this example. The DM looks it over, makes sure the player knows the PrC is more than two levels long because that's important in his universe, and the player goes about spending his 3 skill points in ways that further his qualifications for Deepwarden. He puts another in Climb, another in Jump, and another in K(Dungeoneering), which the DM even agrees fits what's happened so far because they're still stuck in the Mines of Moira cave. He also buys a Heavy Mace, thanks to a random treasure drop and that mysterious shopkeep who always manages to survive the zombie apocalypse.

For the climactic battle of the first arc, the DM has the vampire surrounded by sufficient Skeletons to make this a difficult but not insurmountable challenge. Game ends due to the lateness of the hour. Player goes home, hops on GitP forum because the Gnome Sorcerer kept quoting the comic, and reads a thread that highlights the fact that, hey, Skeletons would be easier for him to kill with his Heavy Mace than his Waraxe.

Now, remember, the party fought undead exclusively through the first level, but the character invested NO RANKS in K(religion) because of legitimate story concerns, because it avoided overlap of party's skills, and because he's strapped for skills to enter his spiffy Prestige Class. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that the way the DM described the fights so far did not make it clear to the player that his mighty blows with the Waraxe were less effective due to skeletons' innate DR.

The next session, our Dwarf Barbarian player starts out by saying, "I pull out the axe of my ancestors.... no, wait. Skeletons. I mean, I pull out my new Heavy Mace and charge into the fray!"

Was the player cheating?

Emmerask
2010-10-28, 07:47 AM
Well normally the other characters should have pointed it it out to the new player, or the dm should have told him using good description of what is happening if he hits something like
"you are hitting the skeleton with the full force of your waraxe but the blow glances of the bones and it only gets some scratches"
this way the dm gives those basic hints a player needs.

Furthermore the intent (yes I like that one sue me :-P) behind visiting the forum in you case plays an important role, cheating is a deliberate action you do, it doesn´t creep up behind you and slaps you :smallwink:
He had the intention to read some funny comics, then has gone on to read some interesting stuff about tactics in d&d.

He then stumbles upon a thread that highlights that skeletons have dmg reduction against slashing weapons and gains some "metagame" knowledge and uses it next fight. The use of said metagame knowledge however is completely justified now having fought against skeletons a whole session.

So all in all no in this case it was not cheating, but these are completely different circumstances then creating a thread: with this is the encounter, this our group, these our resources (spells, items etc) what must we do to defeat the encounter.

Psyx
2010-10-28, 07:59 AM
The character is role-playing poorly and meta-gaming, using OOC knowledge.


Although the real problem here -if the skelies are normal- is that the GM was in remiss for in no way indicating that blunt weapons were doing more damage. Unless of course these are homebrew specials, with no DR, of course. In which case the player is acting on incorrect information.

Looking up the 'solution' to the 'problem' and pulling it out of the hat hasn't actually solved the problem. Talking to the GM would have done. Either the GM needs to work on his descriptions more, or there *is* no problem [homebrew skeletons], other than the one that's just been created by the Internet providing information that was wrong because the Net was oblivious of the context and the specific game.

Using the internet and blindly applying that knowledge was a poor choice, and nothing has been 'fixed'.

Amphetryon
2010-10-28, 08:09 AM
Although the real problem here -if the skelies are normal- is that the GM was in remiss for in no way indicating that blunt weapons were doing more damage. Emphasis mine. Just a clarification, here: that's not quite what I said. I said the DM did not describe the action in such a way that a noobie, who is unfamiliar with the way D&D handles DR, could immediately grok that it was his weapon choice and not some other factor that was making his fight against skeletons more difficult.

It could have been that the one with the blunt weapon scored a natural 20 and everyone oohed and ahhed about the high roll. It could have been that the Sorcerer used an AoE that whittled everything down. Maybe the Cleric burned through her Turn Undead attempts on Skeletons, not realizing there would be Ghouls and Allips and so forth.

Psyx
2010-10-28, 09:07 AM
It's still a communication issue though, if the GM did not describe it in a suitable manner for the player.

Earthwalker
2010-10-28, 09:41 AM
-snip-
The next session, our Dwarf Barbarian player starts out by saying, "I pull out the axe of my ancestors.... no, wait. Skeletons. I mean, I pull out my new Heavy Mace and charge into the fray!"

Was the player cheating?

I would say yes.
Of course after an encounter with skeletons as a GM I use the skeleton encounter to teach the new player about DR and how different types of weapons are more effective, it would be very unlikly to happen in my game.

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-28, 11:14 AM
Yes, I am talking about games other than my own. Why? Because I love gaming, and when I see stuff that to me is totally against the spirit and intent of the game, I want to talk about it.

The trouble is, that's only your perception of the spirit and intent of the game. Mine may well be different (and very probably is), and say, Tyndmyr's or Killer Angel's is different again. As clearly evidenced by this entire thread.

One thing that the forums have long since taught me is there are myriad different styles of play and - so long as no-one in the group is being a jerk - there is emphatically no wrong way to play D&D.


Does that seem weird? Let me give you another analogy. Let's say we're on a forum discussing basketball. If someone wrote that in their group of friends, they figure that scoring points is the most important part of the game. So if a player is fouled, the team gets to choose whoever they want to make the free throw instead of that player who's been fouled, 'cause they want the guy who is best at free throws making the shot. It doesn't effect anyone else outside that group, but you can bet your bootie that there would be howls of protest and indignation at such a declaration. Why? Think about it.

I'm afraid any kind of analogy with any form of competative thing (especially sport) is completely wasted on me as I am horribly uncompetative (and less interested in any form of sport than I am in pouring pudding into my eyesockets).



But anyway, as far as I'm concerned, so long as people are having fun with it, there is no wrong way to play any game. So, y'know, so long as everyone with on board with it, if you want to bludgeon Colonel Mustard to death with a candlestick while playing Cluedo, use your BattleMechs to form a dancing troupe of pop superstars in the fashion of the Jonas Brothers, play on Warhammer World using Bunnies and Burrows, roleplay out your chess match or enliven football (i.e. soccer for you Americans) by encouraging the use of rocket launchers and plasma mines, go right ahead. It's no flesh off my bone, and I don't see why it should be anyone else's.

WotC actually coined a phrase for this line of thought, the Jell_Moo Principle: "Do not tell other people how to play the game."

(It would sadden me that terms like this and the Stormwind Fallacy ended up having to be made because they cropped up often enough, but my opinion of humans cannot actually get any lower without them actually being Vampires.)

However, this side-discussion is getting off the actual topic of the thread itself, so I'll not go on about it more than I already have.

Amphetryon
2010-10-28, 11:46 AM
So far, two folks have called it cheating to accidentally stumble upon a pre-existing internet discussion about which weapons work best against skeletons, one has said it isn't, and one is apparently abstaining. Hmmm.

dsmiles
2010-10-28, 12:02 PM
So far, two folks have called it cheating to accidentally stumble upon a pre-existing internet discussion about which weapons work best against skeletons, one has said it isn't, and one is apparently abstaining. Hmmm.

Ooo!Ooo! I vote...um...PURPLE!

No, seriously. Put me in the "conditional" column. If someone accidentally stumbles on a thread, and uses it when their character wouldn't have such information available, I call "party foul." That's just straight meta-gaming, and I disapprove of meta-gaming for fun and/or profit. Play in character.
If said person stumbles upon said thread, and uses the information as soon as their character finds out that skeletons are vulnerable to blunt, smashy things, I have no problem with it. Their character has reasonable access to that information already.

Psyx
2010-10-28, 12:04 PM
Where do you stand on the example cited before yours?


Which posters have called it cheating, and which have abstained?

Emmerask
2010-10-28, 12:06 PM
So far, two folks have called it cheating to accidentally stumble upon a pre-existing internet discussion about which weapons work best against skeletons, one has said it isn't, and one is apparently abstaining. Hmmm.

Well the simulationist in me tells me that after fighting none stop skeletons the last session even the axe-wielding barbarian will have realized that his hits do less damage then they should, others may argue that the player should realize it on his own, however the original topic is about asking for specific advice how to beat an encounter that is currently in progress which is an entirely different matter because there it is without a doubt cheating :smallsmile:

Yes one can construe a situation that lies in a gray area but that does not diminish the original point :smallwink:

Lord Vampyre
2010-10-28, 12:18 PM
Well, that would be your own fault if it bothers you that much as a DM.

If you don't want your players thinking up strategy against an enemy, don't have the combat against them last so long that a strategy needs to be formulated and really don't end the session with a combat that's going to drag on if you don't have wiggle room time-wise.

I have to agree that DMs shouldn't end their games in the middle of a combat. No matter how good the player is at not meta-gaming, he is still going to ponder over the circumstance over the next week. Also, a DM has to expect that the players are going to discuss it, especially since it will be eating at them the whole week. The obvious solution is to not end the game during a combat.


And if they're doing badly but haven't been TPK'd they've demonstrated that they can't overcome it with their own spur of the moment thinking (by virtue of it being alive) but also don't deserve to die for it out of hand (by virtue of them not being dead yet).

However, I don't agree that players don't deserve to die fighting a futile battle. Some combats are specifically placed to make the party run away. If they choose to keep on fighting when they should obviously run away, then they deserve to have the creature to completely kill the party. As a DM, I always give the party a way out of combat.

Thrawn183
2010-10-28, 12:19 PM
Please.

Scenario: Player has read the MM. Character is level 1 noob. The character encounters a monster with a specific weakness, and there is *no* reason that the character should know what that weakness is, even though the player does.

Optimal: Attack the weakness
In-character: Don't attack the weakness

Anyway, it's not a Stormwind fallacy, as that was more specifically about *character* optimization vs. roleplaying, not "not using metagame information".

My only issue with this is a question of degrees. If you have a player doing this, going onto a forum and asking for advice between game sessions is the least of your problems. Right now you* have a crisis in roleplaying.

If you can grow players into roleplayers that don't want to metagame, they will by extension not want to use information from a forum that their characters would have no way of knowing.

Note* You plural, not saying you, kyoryu, specifically.

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 12:26 PM
Was the player cheating?

I'm gonna vote no on this.

The resistance of skeletons to slashing weapons should have been noticed by the character. Regardless of what the DM did, regardless of what skills the player bought, regardless of anything else, someone well-trained in swinging an axe around would notice that their axe swings were basically glancing off of the bone and not "sinking in" like would be expected.

IOW, even if the DM screwed up by not making it clear that the axe was less effective than might be assumed, this is information that the character should have reasonably been able to acquire through simple observation. That's typically my heuristic - what's the likelihood that the character would have known this or observed this on his own? In this case, it's *at least* 90%.

If, as a player, I wanted to really double-check and ensure I wasn't metagaming, I'd make a couple of rolls vs. int or wis to see if I put 2 and 2 together, or even ask the DM what was appropriate in that case. "Hey, I was reading a thread online when I saw that skeletons had DR to slashing weapons... you've never mentioned that, but is it something that you think my character would have worked out by now? I mean, we've been fighting a lot of skeletons..."

(And yes, I realize you can justify anything.... "Uh, my daddy told me about fighting skeletons, and, uh, you know the old Dwarven song, 'Don't Hit Skeletons With an Axe, They Hate Bashes More Than Hacks'"... that's why I said likelihood, to avoid the "can I make up a justification" game).


Note* You plural, not saying you, kyoryu, specifically.

I kind of assumed that, since we seem to be on the same side of the argument. (I do that a lot, too, make a follow-up comment that is in agreement with the comment I quote, though it could be misread as accusing the quoted person as holding the opposite position...)


However, I don't agree that players don't deserve to die fighting a futile battle. Some combats are specifically placed to make the party run away. If they choose to keep on fighting when they should obviously run away, then they deserve to have the creature to completely kill the party. As a DM, I always give the party a way out of combat.

I won't kill parties due to random chance alone, with no way for them to have avoided it. For instance, rolling a random encounter, getting something very tough, having it win initiative, and kill the party before they even get a move, a chance to hide, or a chance to react.

If the party won't run from an overwhelming battle, that's on their heads, not mine.

Amphetryon
2010-10-28, 12:39 PM
Where do you stand on the example cited before yours?


Which posters have called it cheating, and which have abstained?
Very well, I'll go back and recap the few posts between my positing and clarifying the hypothetical situation and your inquiry... There were only 4 folks in between, so luckily it's easy on my math skills.

You, Psyx, called it poor form and meta-gaming, using OOC knowledge; if that's not cheating, it's close enough to see it from there. That's 1 for cheating/poor form/no, no, bad roleplayer. Earthwalker was even more explicit in saying, yes, it is cheating. Two votes for reading something someone else posted regarding a situation you're facing being the same as cheating. Emmarask specifically said "all in all no in this case it was not cheating;" I'm calling that a vote for no, not cheating. Two votes to one.

Generally, those conducting a survey are separate from those taking it. If you are unclear on my position, I've said all along that I don't understand why finding out more information about your characters, the scenario you're facing, or similar is cheating when done via the internet but not when done via friends in the group or reading Ye Olde PHb. I suppose reading a prepackaged adventure as your DM is running you through it is close to cheating in a non-competitive game where there's not supposed to be a winner and a loser, but you still have to roll the dice and portray your character as surprised at the events. All you've done, really, is skipped to the end of the book before going back and reading about how they get there.

EDIT: Aotros commented but made no mention of my informal survey. I'm counting that as an abstention as of the original "three votes, one abstaining" comment.

Thrawn183
2010-10-28, 12:45 PM
For me it all comes down to whether or not it is metagame knowledge. If someone is fighting a red dragon (in character knowing its immunity to fire) and posts their spells prepared and someone else kindly reminds them that the Flame Strike spell they already have prepared and ready to go is half divine damage, that's not metagaming.

Long story short, as long as it isn't metagaming, I don't have a problem with it.

Ruinix
2010-10-28, 12:57 PM
So, every now and then I see these threads along the lines of "My party has met up with [X challenge], what should we do?" And I get this vision of of a group of adventurers in a dungeon whipping out a cell phone and telling a charging monster "Hold on, going to use a LifeLine".

As a DM, I figure the point is to come up with challenges for the players, not the entire blogonet. Asking for advice between games seems a lot like text messaging your friends for the answers during trivia quiz night at the pub, you know?

Your characters are facing this, you figure it out. Better yet, figure out what your character would do, hm?

this is the very reason why I as DM try to start and end an important fight in the same seasson.

if I can't end the fight in that seasson then i suck it. is my fault for bad planning the CR or what ever.

although, I trust in my players, i know them since many years (10 - 15 years) and i know they don't cheat or metagame just because, and if they r over talking OCC I just tell them and they stop.


the all thing is, if u do your a well homework as DM this should not happen; the break in half fight. i mean in a straight 6-8 hours session it's enough time for a BBEG figh or any other high rank bad guy.

if u pass that time line then just take the shot XD cause seriously, it's your fault.

Earthwalker
2010-10-28, 01:02 PM
Its odd how people play the game differently.

My simple rule is that people should play their characters on character knowledge alone. The example you gave broke that rule and so I would call breaking rules cheating (this is of course at my table)

No mention is made of what a reaction I would have to cheating, with such simple binary is this cheating or no I feel it makes me sound like I would walk out on the group as there is too much cheating going on.

In the example given I really wouldn't care if I was running the game as it was my own fault anyway.

All cheating of this level does is spoil my fun of the game as a player or GM, I am including most situations where character knowledge is ignored in actions performed.

I have always had a problem with DnD the meta gaming required to play is too high for me anyway.

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 02:07 PM
Its odd how people play the game differently.

My simple rule is that people should play their characters on character knowledge alone. The example you gave broke that rule and so I would call breaking rules cheating (this is of course at my table)


I agree with you on character knowledge, but in this case I do think it's likely that the character would have realized the skeletons' resistance to slashing weapons.

I think we'd both agree that if the character came by this knowledge, then it is not cheating? So the question is in this case, is the fact that the *player* didn't have the knowledge due to (arguably) DM error a reason that the *character* shouldn't have it? I don't think it is, and I think that the DM is in error for not (subtly or not) pointing out the skeletons' DR after a sufficient time in a skeleton-focused campaign.

Amphetryon
2010-10-28, 02:14 PM
I agree with you on character knowledge, but in this case I do think it's likely that the character would have realized the skeletons' resistance to slashing weapons.

I think we'd both agree that if the character came by this knowledge, then it is not cheating? So the question is in this case, is the fact that the *player* didn't have the knowledge due to (arguably) DM error a reason that the *character* shouldn't have it? I don't think it is, and I think that the DM is in error for not (subtly or not) pointing out the skeletons' DR after a sufficient time in a skeleton-focused campaign.

While I agree it was not cheating, I have often seen it argued on D&D forums that such knowledge needs to be represented on your character sheet in order to be useful to the character. As the character took no ranks in K(Religion), he is presumed to be without that knowledge, in game, by that argument. This would hold regardless of how the DM's description influenced understanding of the DR mechanic. He could have rolled nothing but 2s and 3s for damage.

Coidzor
2010-10-28, 02:18 PM
Meh, it only serves to make someone look bad if they would hold switching to bludgeoning weapons against skeletons against a player that was too dumb to realize it on his own in the first place.

Earthwalker
2010-10-28, 02:31 PM
I think we'd both agree that if the character came by this knowledge, then it is not cheating?

Yep if the character has the knowledge I would think not cheating.
It was the GMs fault in the example, if I was a player I wouldn't mind at all and if I was GMing I would be most upset at how badly I had done with a noobie.


While I agree it was not cheating, I have often seen it argued on D&D forums that such knowledge needs to be represented on your character sheet in order to be useful to the character. As the character took no ranks in K(Religion), he is presumed to be without that knowledge, in game, by that argument. This would hold regardless of how the DM's description influenced understanding of the DR mechanic. He could have rolled nothing but 2s and 3s for damage.

Knowledge for characters comes from playing the game and from knowledge skills they have. Getting knowledge Religion means that the character may know of other undead, but facing skeletons and defeating them mean he knows about skeletons.

Of course we have a nice grey area when you start a character at lvl 10.

Ruinix
2010-10-28, 02:51 PM
Its odd how people play the game differently.

My simple rule is that people should play their characters on character knowledge alone. The example you gave broke that rule and so I would call breaking rules cheating (this is of course at my table)

No mention is made of what a reaction I would have to cheating, with such simple binary is this cheating or no I feel it makes me sound like I would walk out on the group as there is too much cheating going on.

In the example given I really wouldn't care if I was running the game as it was my own fault anyway.

All cheating of this level does is spoil my fun of the game as a player or GM, I am including most situations where character knowledge is ignored in actions performed.

I have always had a problem with DnD the meta gaming required to play is too high for me anyway.

nice input.

with that point of view, how can explain optimized builds for characters ?

cause i don't know how IN character knowledge the FIGHTER character have to take a few WIZARD levels for get fast entrance to abjurant champion and get a gish build.

or even how in the nine hells IN character knowledge the scout charcter realize it HAS to get 1 level of cloisted cleric of some deity with travel as domain for trade it for the devotion feat.

or even. how in character knowledge in a mid an foward optimized party it's has all the rols covered? meat shield, skill monkey, healbot, glass cannon.

and all that is just for this D&D theme and mechanic, cause this kind of issue can apply to almost every game exept for paranoia or toons, maybe.

Killer Angel
2010-10-28, 03:14 PM
One thing that the forums have long since taught me is there are myriad different styles of play and - so long as no-one in the group is being a jerk - there is emphatically no wrong way to play D&D.


...and this could very well ends that sidethread! :smallsmile:

(but, c'mon, it's so entertaining to debate and sustain our different PoVs... you know, there's always someone wrong in internet [insert xkcd comic]. :smallwink:)

Earthwalker
2010-10-28, 03:18 PM
nice input.

with that point of view, how can explain optimized builds for characters ?

cause i don't know how IN character knowledge the FIGHTER character have to take a few WIZARD levels for get fast entrance to abjurant champion and get a gish build.

or even how in the nine hells IN character knowledge the scout charcter realize it HAS to get 1 level of cloisted cleric of some deity with travel as domain for trade it for the devotion feat.

or even. how in character knowledge in a mid an foward optimized party it's has all the rols covered? meat shield, skill monkey, healbot, glass cannon.

and all that is just for this D&D theme and mechanic, cause this kind of issue can apply to almost every game exept for paranoia or toons, maybe.

Its a good question and my simple answer is I don't as I don't play in that kind of optimized game. For DnD I have the PHB, DMG. My current character is thief 3, wizard 3 and heading towards arcane trickster. The character has a background with a traveling show where he learned his thief skills, in time he is learning about magic.

I can explain a fighter taking levels of wizard because he wants to learn and know magic He will move towards the gish build in character as being good with weapons and wanting to learn magic to add to his abilities.

The current opinion is that classes are in no way character knowledge. A character doesn't know he is a fighter 3, barbarian 3 and frenzied berserker 3. He just knows he can fight and get mad.

I have said a few times that with my point of view DnD isn't the best game for my style as there is too much forced meta-gaming. Saying that I still enjoying playing and running the game its just a small thing to bug me about the game.

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 03:44 PM
While I agree it was not cheating, I have often seen it argued on D&D forums that such knowledge needs to be represented on your character sheet in order to be useful to the character.

That kind of "everything must be represented on the character sheet" mentality is not, in my opinion, very useful. Clearly, characters don't have ranks in the Utensil Use skill, and yet I haven't seen a game that requires you to not use a fork without it. Personally, I view ranks in skills as representing formal training (or severe immersion) in something, and presume that characters can and will learn other skills to a lesser degree.

Is it possible that a 10th level character has come across skeletons before, and knows of their DR? Of course it is! In fact, you could probably make an argument that it's 80% likely... which leads you directly to a roll to figure out if the character does know this or not.

Personally, I don't *want* to play in a game where literally everything must be on a character sheet to exist. I don't *want* to play in a game where everything my character learns must in some way be purchased when I advance in ranks... and certainly if I did play in such a game, I'd insist that it was a system that involved some kind of automatic levelling in such skills, so that someone going through a heavily skeleton-intensive campaign would *automatically* develop skills in Knowledge(Skeleton) or the equivalent, kind of like RuneQuest.

Amphetryon
2010-10-28, 03:52 PM
That kind of "everything must be represented on the character sheet" mentality is not, in my opinion, very useful. Clearly, characters don't have ranks in the Utensil Use skill, and yet I haven't seen a game that requires you to not use a fork without it. Personally, I view ranks in skills as representing formal training (or severe immersion) in something, and presume that characters can and will learn other skills to a lesser degree.

Is it possible that a 10th level character has come across skeletons before, and knows of their DR? Of course it is! In fact, you could probably make an argument that it's 80% likely... which leads you directly to a roll to figure out if the character does know this or not.

Personally, I don't *want* to play in a game where literally everything must be on a character sheet to exist. I don't *want* to play in a game where everything my character learns must in some way be purchased when I advance in ranks... and certainly if I did play in such a game, I'd insist that it was a system that involved some kind of automatic levelling in such skills, so that someone going through a heavily skeleton-intensive campaign would *automatically* develop skills in Knowledge(Skeleton) or the equivalent, kind of like RuneQuest.I don't disagree. That said:

Where is the 10th level character assumption coming from? It's not from the example I was originally using in an effort to move the discussion from theoretical exercise to real, game-time issues.

Where is the line, in your opinion, between what's acceptable for a character to have learned *just from adventuring* versus what that character has learned through skill and feat investiture? I can foresee this line of thought devolving into a slippery slope, so I'm trying to gauge a starting point.

Ruinix
2010-10-28, 03:56 PM
Its a good question and my simple answer is I don't as I don't play in that kind of optimized game. For DnD I have the PHB, DMG. My current character is thief 3, wizard 3 and heading towards arcane trickster. The character has a background with a traveling show where he learned his thief skills, in time he is learning about magic.

I can explain a fighter taking levels of wizard because he wants to learn and know magic He will move towards the gish build in character as being good with weapons and wanting to learn magic to add to his abilities.

The current opinion is that classes are in no way character knowledge. A character doesn't know he is a fighter 3, barbarian 3 and frenzied berserker 3. He just knows he can fight and get mad.

I have said a few times that with my point of view DnD isn't the best game for my style as there is too much forced meta-gaming. Saying that I still enjoying playing and running the game its just a small thing to bug me about the game.

LOL man XD u make me lol in my office and everyone turn their heads to look at me XDDDD

point taken ^^

i get your point, and i still understand as a player and as a DM there is some degree of metagame when a player pick a crapy feat wich is pre req. for another very good. the character don't what is behind the curtain before take a pick, but the player does.

fast example. improved sunder. who ever use this feat ??? really, there is anyone who ever destroy the loot ? but every charger build has, cause is pre req. for Combat Brute feat.


another very basic. why a char lev 1 buy a 10 ft pole ?
yes is common sense for any experienced player, but the char hasn't any experiencie at all.

Earthwalker
2010-10-28, 04:07 PM
another very basic. why a char lev 1 buy a 10 ft pole ?
yes is common sense for any experienced player, but the char hasn't any experiencie at all.

They don't.

Every other character buys a 10 foot ladder.

Earthwalker
2010-10-28, 04:13 PM
Where is the 10th level character assumption coming from? It's not from the example I was originally using in an effort to move the discussion from theoretical exercise to real, game-time issues.

Where is the line, in your opinion, between what's acceptable for a character to have learned *just from adventuring* versus what that character has learned through skill and feat investiture? I can foresee this line of thought devolving into a slippery slope, so I'm trying to gauge a starting point.

It was my fault of opening up the level 10 can of worms.
Again I have no idea where you draw the line with what a character would know.
I can think of examples off the top of my head, like the Balor case, I would think that a lvl 10 character doesn't know all the abilities of a Balor, but he will have an idea what one is and that its not a good idea to try to take one out with out a lot of help.

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 04:19 PM
I don't disagree. That said:

Where is the 10th level character assumption coming from? It's not from the example I was originally using in an effort to move the discussion from theoretical exercise to real, game-time issues.

Where is the line, in your opinion, between what's acceptable for a character to have learned *just from adventuring* versus what that character has learned through skill and feat investiture? I can foresee this line of thought devolving into a slippery slope, so I'm trying to gauge a starting point.

Someone else pointed out that there's a bit of a different argument when dealing with a character rolled up at 10th level... was just responding to that in the same reply, sorry about the confusion.

My view is this: If you've put mechanics into it (point allocation, etc.), you have it.

Your character experiences what they experience. There's no need for a mechanic for that. You don't need a Knowledge check to know the name of the King of Somekingdomia if you've actually met the guy.

For things in the middle, figure there's a chance you know it, and a chance you don't. If it's significantly game-effecting, ask the DM. Otherwise, come up with a reasonable chance and roll.

(personally, I roll for a *lot* of things with my characters - reactions to NPCs, etc. Sometimes the results are surprising, and roleplaying through that can lead to a lot of fun - like my character falling in love with a thoroughly evil NPC, even though as a player I was completely aware of her evilness... good times, good times)

dsmiles
2010-10-28, 05:53 PM
They don't.

Every other character buys a 10 foot ladder.

Because ladders are cheaper than poles, for some crazy reason.

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 06:16 PM
Because ladders are cheaper than poles, for some crazy reason.

And DMs don't ask players how they're lugging a 10 foot ladder around.

Or a 10 foot pole, either, but that's at least manageable.

Coidzor
2010-10-28, 06:46 PM
cause i don't know how IN character knowledge the FIGHTER character have to take a few WIZARD levels for get fast entrance to abjurant champion and get a gish build.

Um, you don't see how a fighting type would want to learn magic in order to become a magic fighting type? or even see learning magic in the first place as necessary to learning to be a fighting magic type? That's just silly not to be able to see this one.

Boci
2010-10-28, 06:50 PM
And DMs don't ask players how they're lugging a 10 foot ladder around.

Or a 10 foot pole, either, but that's at least manageable.

To reach otherwise inaccessable places?

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 06:52 PM
To reach otherwise inaccessable places?

How, not why.

Go home, find a 10-foot ladder, and walk around with it. Tell me how that works out.

Try it with a 10-foot pole. I bet that works a lot better, but is still somewhat awkward.

Coidzor
2010-10-28, 06:53 PM
How, not why.

Go home, find a 10-foot ladder, and walk around with it. Tell me how that works out.

Try it with a 10-foot pole. I bet that works a lot better, but is still somewhat awkward.

who, in this modern day and age, would have a wooden 10 foot ladder?
:smallconfused:
Maybe the Amish?

dsmiles
2010-10-28, 06:55 PM
who, in this modern day and age, would have a wooden 10 foot ladder?
:smallconfused:
Maybe the Amish?

Even an aluminum one would be awkward. Just, you know, lighter. :smalltongue:

EDIT: Just how, exactly, did this go from 'cheating via Playground' to 'how awkward is it to carry a 10 foot ladder'? I'm just curious.

Boci
2010-10-28, 06:57 PM
How, not why.

Go home, find a 10-foot ladder, and walk around with it. Tell me how that works out.

Try it with a 10-foot pole. I bet that works a lot better, but is still somewhat awkward.

I'll tell you once I get 14 strength and dexterity. Besides I bet carrying a 20ft ladder would seem pretty tame compared to what some soldiers do for training. It may be uncomfortable, but then so is a lot of things about adventuring. Just make sure you can drop it without damaging it to make sure it doesn't hinder you in combat. Or be a drunken fist.

Zaydos
2010-10-28, 07:04 PM
Can a 9-10 foot limb substitute for a 10-ft pole? Honestly that's not that awkward (I used to spin one around for fun). Make it bamboo and it's positively easy and the main problem becomes ceiling height.

10-ft (aluminum) ladder? That's awkward to carry.

14 Str wouldn't help with the ladder; it's not the weight (going by benchpress and experience with weighted vests I'm approximately 11 Str) it's the size/shape.

The pole? Yeah Strength and Dexterity would help a lot with.

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 07:06 PM
I'll tell you once I get 14 strength and dexterity. Besides I bet carrying a 20ft ladder would seem pretty tame compared to what some soldiers do for training. It may be uncomfortable, but then so is a lot of things about adventuring. Just make sure you can drop it without damaging it to make sure it doesn't hinder you in combat. Or be a drunken fist.

I'm just getting this image of a typical adventuring company walking around, all carrying their ladders with them. Getting into arguments when they try to turn a corner in a dungeon.

Good times, good times.

Boci
2010-10-28, 07:08 PM
I'm just getting this image of a typical adventuring company walking around, all carrying their ladders with them. Getting into arguments when they try to turn a corner in a dungeon.

Good times, good times.

If you're having trouble co-ordinating the act of walking around a corner with a ladder, adventuring just might not be for you.

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 07:10 PM
If you're having trouble co-ordinating the act of walking around a corner with a ladder, adventuring just might not be for you.

One person, sure.

6 people walking closely together, all carrying 10-foot ladders? Hijinks ensue.

dsmiles
2010-10-28, 07:11 PM
One person, sure.

6 people sneaking closely together, all carrying 10-foot ladders? Hijinks ensue.

This may be even funnier.

Boci
2010-10-28, 07:14 PM
One person, sure.

6 people walking closely together, all carrying 10-foot ladders? Hijinks ensue.

Why would you need 6? If you're just making up these scenario's for laughs then ignore my comments, I'm just saying (IMO) carrying a 10ft ladder is only slightly worse than wearing full plate and carrying a great axe.

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 07:20 PM
Why would you need 6? If you're just making up these scenario's for laughs then ignore my comments, I'm just saying (IMO) carrying a 10ft ladder is only slightly worse than wearing full plate and carrying a great axe.

6 is a relatively reasonable adventuring group size.

I've played hockey. I've worn, effectively, armor over my entire body. Add in a big stick as an axe substitute... And people I know that have worn *real* armor also have pointed out that it's not really that awkward to move in.

Walking around with a 10-foot ladder is. It's awkward to grip, can have a lot of momentum, and tends to swing around and hit things if you're not careful. It's not a matter of weight, it's the fact that something that big is just awkward to move.

Armor and axes more or less conform to normal human movement, much like a heavy backpack does. Ladders don't.

Boci
2010-10-28, 07:26 PM
6 is a relatively reasonable adventuring group size.

Yes, but one ladder per group is enough.


I've played hockey. I've worn, effectively, armor over my entire body. Add in a big stick as an axe substitute... And people I know that have worn *real* armor also have pointed out that it's not really that awkward to move in.

That gets into the debate of what armour is used in D&D, because modern real armour is not the same as the stuff worn by knights.


Armor and axes more or less conform to normal human movement, much like a heavy backpack does. Ladders don't.

Yes but the latter wieghs quite a bit less.

Coidzor
2010-10-28, 07:27 PM
One person, sure.

6 people walking closely together, all carrying 10-foot ladders? Hijinks ensue.

...Somebody needs to get a camera and youtube this...

dsmiles
2010-10-28, 07:31 PM
Yes but the latter wieghs quite a bit less.

But it's ten feet long! Imagine how awkward that would be to carry. :smalleek:

EDIT: I just realized that I can't unsee the images evoked by that statement. :eek:

Zaydos
2010-10-28, 07:32 PM
Why would you need 6? If you're just making up these scenario's for laughs then ignore my comments, I'm just saying (IMO) carrying a 10ft ladder is only slightly worse than wearing full plate and carrying a great axe.

Full-Plate = well distributed weight.

Great-Axe = heavy object about 5 or 6-ft tall. Can be held upright with no problem.

10-ft ladder = badly balanced and bulky object.

It's not the weight. Walking around with a 50-ft pound vest isn't that hard, although it does make steep hills tiring and is best done at some time other than in Summer heat (it's dehydrating). It slows you down (I could still keep up with my little brother easily, so it maybe halved my walking speed to more than 2 mph).

Carrying a ladder is a completely different set of difficulties. Try doing it in a 5-ft hallway and it becomes much different.

Also 50-lbs close to your body supported by primarily your legs, are easier to carry than 5-lbs 10-ft away (or even 5-ft away since you're supporting them with your much weaker arms).

Coidzor
2010-10-28, 07:33 PM
But it's ten feet long! Imagine how awkward that would be to carry. :smalleek:

EDIT: I just realized that I can't unsee the images evoked by that statement. :eek:

I'm.... not following ya there. :smallconfused: And I think I'm glad.

dsmiles
2010-10-28, 07:34 PM
I'm.... not following ya there. :smallconfused: And I think I'm glad.

You're...very lucky.
Think Century Worm

Boci
2010-10-28, 07:35 PM
Full-Plate = well distributed weight.

Great-Axe = heavy object about 5 or 6-ft tall. Can be held upright with no problem.

10-ft ladder = badly balanced and bulky object.

It's not the weight. Walking around with a 50-ft pound vest isn't that hard, although it does make steep hills tiring and is best done at some time other than in Summer heat (it's dehydrating). It slows you down (I could still keep up with my little brother easily, so it maybe halved my walking speed to more than 2 mph).

Carrying a ladder is a completely different set of difficulties. Try doing it in a 5-ft hallway and it becomes much different.

Also 50-lbs close to your body supported by primarily your legs, are easier to carry than 5-lbs 10-ft away (or even 5-ft away since you're supporting them with your much weaker arms).

I'm not saying its easy, just that its not that much of a big deal. Yes it uncomfortable. Almost as uncomfortable as getting stabbed in the legs repeatedly by a goblin with a dagger.

Coidzor
2010-10-28, 07:37 PM
Err, it'll be ok. Ladders don't spit acid, remember?

dsmiles
2010-10-28, 07:38 PM
Err, it'll be ok. Ladders don't spit acid, remember?

:smallconfused:
If your ladder isn't spitting acid, you haven't properly optimized it.

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 07:40 PM
I'm not saying its easy, just that its not that much of a big deal. Yes it uncomfortable. Almost as uncomfortable as getting stabbed in the legs repeatedly by a goblin with a dagger.

But what if the goblin stabs you with a ladder? Huh? HUH?

Boci
2010-10-28, 07:41 PM
But what if the goblin stabs you with a ladder? Huh? HUH?

They'd be less likely to hit you due to the -4 to hit penalty for using an improvished weapon but they would deal more damage...wait, STABBED WITH A LADDER?

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 07:42 PM
They'd be less likely to hit you due to the -4 to hit penalty for using an improvished weapon but they would deal more damage...wait, STABBED WITH A LADDER?

At least it's not a vorpal ladder. Be thankful for that.

A v0rpal ladder once bit my sister...

dsmiles
2010-10-28, 07:42 PM
They'd be less likely to hit you due to the -4 to hit penalty for using an improvished weapon but they would deal more damage...wait, STABBED WITH A LADDER?

Ladders are dangerous.

No realli! She was Karving her initials on the vørpal ladder with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink".

dsmiles
2010-10-28, 07:45 PM
Mynd you, vørpal ladder bites Kan be pretty nasti...

Zaydos
2010-10-28, 07:51 PM
It's not at all about comfort. It's about maneuverability. It's easier to maneuver with a 50-lb vest or with a backpack full of D&D books, or carrying 50-lbs of bags and while navigating an international air port than it is to carry a 10-ft ladder (and yes I've done all 4).

It's not the weight it's the size and shape. Now some of the above will slow you down more, but not make maneuvering as awkward.

Throw in confined spaces (say a dungeon with a roof assumed to be 10-ft tall unless specified otherwise) and ladders are even more unwieldy.

On that note: 10-ft tall roof is assumed for dungeons... so why do they all have monsters that are taller?

Harder to maneuver than carrying a ladder: Carrying 70+ lbs of bags and a 3 to 4 inch diameter, 5-ft long walking stick while navigating an international airport.

dsmiles
2010-10-28, 07:53 PM
It's not at all about comfort. It's about maneuverability. It's easier to maneuver with a 50-lb vest or with a backpack full of D&D books, or carrying 50-lbs of bags and while navigating an international air port than it is to carry a 10-ft ladder (and yes I've done all 4).

It's not the weight it's the size and shape. Now some of the above will slow you down more, but not make maneuvering as awkward.

Throw in confined spaces (say a dungeon with a roof assumed to be 10-ft tall unless specified otherwise) and ladders are even more unwieldy.

On that note: 10-ft tall roof is assumed for dungeons... so why do they all have monsters that are taller?

Harder to maneuver than carrying a ladder: Carrying 70+ lbs of bags and a 3 to 4 inch diameter, 5-ft long walking stick while navigating an international airport.

I only assume 10' ceilings in dungeons designed by medium creatures. A lot of my dungeons are the ruins of a civilization of giants (so I assume approximately 25-30 foot ceilings). I don't know why people assume that all dungeons were designed by medium sized creatures. :smallconfused:

Boci
2010-10-28, 07:55 PM
It's not at all about comfort. It's about maneuverability. It's easier to maneuver with a 50-lb vest or with a backpack full of D&D books, or carrying 50-lbs of bags and while navigating an international air port than it is to carry a 10-ft ladder (and yes I've done all 4).

It's not the weight it's the size and shape. Now some of the above will slow you down more, but not make maneuvering as awkward.

Throw in confined spaces (say a dungeon with a roof assumed to be 10-ft tall unless specified otherwise) and ladders are even more unwieldy.

So if you're in a hurry drop the ladder, otherwise just be careful not to hit the walls or accidentally stab your party members with the ladder by turning around without warning.


On that note: 10-ft tall roof is assumed for dungeons... so why do they all have monsters that are taller?

Dungeonscape has the dungeonbred template for reducing the size of larger creatures.


I only assume 10' ceilings in dungeons designed by medium creatures. A lot of my dungeons are the ruins of a civilization of giants (so I assume approximately 25-30 foot ceilings). I don't know why people assume that all dungeons were designed by medium sized creatures. :smallconfused:

Might have something to do with the wizard in the middle of the dungeon theory since wizards are usually medium. Dragon's cave on the other hand...

Zaydos
2010-10-28, 07:57 PM
I only assume 10' ceilings in dungeons designed by medium creatures. A lot of my dungeons are the ruins of a civilization of giants (so I assume approximately 25-30 foot ceilings). I don't know why people assume that all dungeons were designed by medium sized creatures. :smallconfused:

Because several (not all) of the books say it's the assumed number and don't point out the other and it's silly. Typically my dungeons are just tall enough that melee monsters can reach the ceiling with ease.

NeoRetribution
2010-10-28, 08:00 PM
If your ladder isn't spitting acid, you haven't properly optimized it.

Thank you for that. I needed a good laugh.


On Topic:
Yes, center-of-gravity is a popular phrase for a reason. Twenty to one hundred pounds of weight are both burdens, but they are centered close to the body and require little adaptation.

Carrying a ten foot ladder, however, could theoretically forbid dodging, turning, and tumbling during combat. Although, I would love to see someone build a trip-fighter with two ten-foot planks of wood as a weapon. Vorpal and acidic, of course.

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 08:02 PM
I only assume 10' ceilings in dungeons designed by medium creatures. A lot of my dungeons are the ruins of a civilization of giants (so I assume approximately 25-30 foot ceilings). I don't know why people assume that all dungeons were designed by medium sized creatures. :smallconfused:

Everyone knows that before the Giantish civilization could build dungeons, they were decimated by herds of ravenous vørpal ladders.

The Giants asked for help on how to defeat the vørpal ladders online, but were told it was cheating and that they were metagaming, since they didn't have Knowledge(Vørpal Ladder), even though they had been fighting the vørpal ladders for years.

Stormwind tried to come to their rescue, telling them that it was okay to use the knowledge anyway, but he was unfortunately defeated by an army of skeletons, since he didn't know that they had DR against slashing weapons.

And that's why I should get a Red Ryder BB Gun with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells time.

dsmiles
2010-10-28, 08:37 PM
And that's why I should get a Red Ryder BB Gun with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells time.

You'll shoot your eye out, kid.
(You were supposed to save that one for Christmas.)

Raum
2010-10-28, 08:39 PM
<Squints at the mountain..."Looks like a molehile to me.">

I've skimmed through the thread and have to say I'm somewhat surprised this causes such angst. This appears to be a simple complaint about perceived metagaming. I haven't worried about players metagaming in over a decade. We play to have fun. For at least half of us that includes time spent on various forums discussing games and gaming. If they pick up something new and use it, they'll find an in-character reason. It doesn't hurt the game at all...and it's part of the fun. Where's the issue?

If there is an issue with using info a player can't justify knowing (metagaming) then address the metagaming issue. I suspect it's larger than just using forum gained tactics - when it is an issue at all.

Callista
2010-10-29, 12:57 AM
Ehh, I've always kind of assumed they must be folding ladders; otherwise, how do they stay with the PCs through all their adventures without eventually having to be dropped while fleeing in terror from some enemy?

Killer Angel
2010-10-29, 02:14 AM
EDIT: Just how, exactly, did this go from 'cheating via Playground' to 'how awkward is it to carry a 10 foot ladder'? I'm just curious.

The answer is obviously 42.
Anyway, a great derailment, indeed.


Ladders are dangerous.


...but they cannot match a gazebo. :smallcool:

kyoryu
2010-10-29, 02:55 AM
...but they cannot match a gazebo. :smallcool:

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270913946_efa38ec3d8.jpg (http://www.roflcat.com/)

LordBlades
2010-10-29, 03:37 AM
Whereas the argument regarding the unwieldiness of a 10 ft. ladder has some merit, 10 ft. poles are much easier to carry.

10 ft. is about 3 meters. That's about the average length of hoplite spears, and greek hoplites used to carry spear, shield, breastplate, helmet sword and backpack.

Also, the macedinian phalanx spears were 5-6 m long (15-20 ft.). Not sure if they were actually carried by the soldiers during march, but in combat their use proves that, with enough discipline, a group of people can maneuver around to some extent while carrying very large and unwieldy objects.

Earthwalker
2010-10-29, 03:38 AM
<Squints at the mountain..."Looks like a molehile to me.">

I've skimmed through the thread and have to say I'm somewhat surprised this causes such angst. This appears to be a simple complaint about perceived metagaming. I haven't worried about players metagaming in over a decade. We play to have fun. For at least half of us that includes time spent on various forums discussing games and gaming. If they pick up something new and use it, they'll find an in-character reason. It doesn't hurt the game at all...and it's part of the fun. Where's the issue?

If there is an issue with using info a player can't justify knowing (metagaming) then address the metagaming issue. I suspect it's larger than just using forum gained tactics - when it is an issue at all.

I am not sure it causing that much angst, the question was asked is this cheating and I answer yes as thats what I feel.

Others answered no and I can see thier point.

Meta gaming can cause an issue butmostly it just passes by, I can think of examples that have happened in games I play in where some meta gaming has upset me, I can also think of times where meta gaming hasn't bothered me at all, in all cases I still say its cheating tho.

I wish I hadn't mentioned 10 foot ladders in the thread tho :)

FelixG
2010-10-29, 05:14 AM
Ehh, I've always kind of assumed they must be folding ladders; otherwise, how do they stay with the PCs through all their adventures without eventually having to be dropped while fleeing in terror from some enemy?

Well think about it, if you are fleeing in terror, you could drag that ladder behind you and use it to trip up anyone giving chase, thats a good 10 feet of space that they hopefully cant swing at you!

Running through the rungs of a ladder trying not to trip is rough terrain right? :smallcool:

Psyx
2010-10-29, 05:16 AM
There were only 4 folks in between, so luckily it's easy on my math skills.

I wanted clarification as I'd been misquoted and not actually used the word 'cheating' in the post.



I don't understand why finding out more information about your characters, the scenario you're facing, or similar is cheating when done via the internet but not when done via friends in the group or reading Ye Olde PHb.


Would it be cheating if you and your friends used the MM instead of the PHB?
Because that what those dishing out advice on the Net are doing.

Let's say that the GM expressly forbade players seeking OOC knowledge of the game. Would it be cheating then?



I suppose reading a prepackaged adventure as your DM is running you through it is close to cheating in a non-competitive game where there's not supposed to be a winner and a loser, but you still have to roll the dice and portray your character as surprised at the events.


To me that would be actively cheating of possibly the lowest kind. I wouldn't need to be running: If a fellow player was doing such a thing, I wouldn't want them in the party.

We clearly have VASTLY different opinions as to what cheating is, so lack common definitions in order to reach any manner of agreement on the issue.


against a player that was too dumb to realize it on his own in the first place.

Whoa! The example was NOT the player's fault for 'being dumb'. He's a new player. It's the GM's fault for not communicating the information.



nice input.
with that point of view, how can explain optimized builds for characters ?

I pretty much agree with Earthwalker on this.
And some optimised builds are a struggle to explain in any reasonable way. That's why some people don't want to play some kinds of optimised builds: Because they make no real sense IC, or require such a convoluted backstory as to destroy much sense of 'realism' - if there can be such a word used in te fantasy genre.

Most hardcore RP-heavy groups I know would indeed declare some optimised builds as 'absurd' and want a half-thought-out and decent justification before they came to the table. If the player answers 'erm', then it's back to the drawing board!

[This reminds me of a starwars d20 moment where a PC had died and a player went into another room to gen up another character. They burst back in waving the 'aliens' book frothing 'I want to play one of these! They have +6 dex and... *froth*'. The GM waited for the reel of numbers and statistics to stop and then calmly said 'So: What are they called?'
Seeing the player was utterly incapable of answering the question, the GM replied 'No, then.']

But insisting on role-playing properly does not disqualify IC common sense. You can tell if all the bases are covered in a party by way of having 'recruited' a party and worked with them before. Or by saying 'Hey, we need someone who can scout ahead!'



who, in this modern day and age, would have a wooden 10 foot ladder?

Erm... me?

The building industry still uses wooden ladders a lot. Check it out next time you wander past some scaff.



6 people walking closely together, all carrying 10-foot ladders? Hijinks ensue.

Good training for pike phalanx style feats, then?



because modern real armour is not the same as the stuff worn by knights.

No...it's MORE encumbering. Metal armours protected the limbs, our body armour is so encumbering and inflexible that it can only be used on the torso...

Psyx
2010-10-29, 05:18 AM
Running through the rungs of a ladder trying not to trip is rough terrain right? :smallcool:

Next time I GM I'm going to have some kind of gribbly Large creature with a half-dozen ladders attached to it somehow, just to mess with people's Tumble checks...
Plus, I'd love to watch the party then dismember the ladders afterwards so they can make more money and have a decent campfire...

Boci
2010-10-29, 06:11 AM
[This reminds me of a starwars d20 moment where a PC had died and a player went into another room to gen up another character. They burst back in waving the 'aliens' book frothing 'I want to play one of these! They have +6 dex and... *froth*'. The GM waited for the reel of numbers and statistics to stop and then calmly said 'So: What are they called?'
Seeing the player was utterly incapable of answering the question, the GM replied 'No, then.']

So your DM would have preffered some made up excuse to play with the race rather than an honest "Its a powerful race and could make an interesting character concept?"

If you ever ask me wjy I'm using this or that my answer will generally one of the following "Its powerful and it fits my character concept" or "Its powerful and I've reflavoured it to fit my character concept"


No...it's MORE encumbering. Metal armours protected the limbs, our body armour is so encumbering and inflexible that it can only be used on the torso...

Oh right, I thought it was the otherway around.

Psyx
2010-10-29, 06:41 AM
So your DM would have preffered some made up excuse to play with the race rather than an honest "Its a powerful race and could make an interesting character concept?"

It was more the fact that he hadn't even READ the race's name or ANY of the fluff before talking to the GM. He'd just cut straight to the stats. It was shameless blagging.
Even the player acknowledged the point.


Oh right, I thought it was the otherway around.

Full plate covered the entire body, offering full-body protection. We can't do that with modern body armour: It's too chunky. Kevlar needs to be employed in considerable thickness in order to protect against low-velocity threats. To defeat high-velocity rounds (ie pretty much every threat faced on the battlefield that isn't shrapnel) you need to add very heavy and inflexible ceramic plates. Finally - To absorb and distribute impact - There's trauma padding. I'd much rather wear a mail vest or even a breastplate than Class III or greater body armour on a daily basis.

Boci
2010-10-29, 06:48 AM
It was more the fact that he hadn't even READ the race's name or ANY of the fluff before talking to the GM. He'd just cut straight to the stats. It was shameless blagging.
Even the player acknowledged the point.


Blagging? Hmmmm. Informal conversation in a public place, often deceitful. Don't quite follow you there.
Anyway if I was the DM I would have allowed him to play it, once they'd calmed down and read the fluff. Or not, depending on what their character concept was.

Amphetryon
2010-10-29, 06:50 AM
Would it be cheating if you and your friends used the MM instead of the PHB?
Because that what those dishing out advice on the Net are doing.

Let's say that the GM expressly forbade players seeking OOC knowledge of the game. Would it be cheating then?Wait, so having used a MM at some point and knowing a monster's stats is cheating? Or, again, is it the TIMING that's somehow at issue? Because that would make it really, really difficult for a group to rotate DMs, ever. Also, I wasn't aware that the only advice given on the net is culled from the Monster Manual. That's an interesting assertion. Weapons list the type of damage they do (Bludgeoning, Slashing, Piercing) in the PHb, if memory serves. Yet, someone could ONLY come to the conclusion that a Bludgeoning weapon deals better damage against a meatless Skeleton by reading the Monster Manual and not, for example, applying real-world logic, or by having had the same noobie experience and being given a hint - by a fellow party member - that he's now passing on.

Finally, how exactly does the GM expressly forbid all OOC knowledge and actually expect a viable game to be played? How do they describe the directions the characters are moving? How do they decide that flanking might be a good tactic? How do they know if they've hit a monster or not when reading the numbers on the dice is knowledge the characters would never have?

LordBlades
2010-10-29, 07:00 AM
It was more the fact that he hadn't even READ the race's name or ANY of the fluff before talking to the GM. He'd just cut straight to the stats. It was shameless blagging.
Even the player acknowledged the point.





So the player got attracted to that race by mechanical aspects. Does that mean he couldn't make an awesome character concept out of it?

IMHO, the power of a build and the roleplaying aspect are completely separate things, that are not mutually exclusive.

I'm sure a good roleplayer could come up with an awesome character backstory for pun-pun, while I've seen bad roleplayers fail horribly with a straight monk.

Psyx
2010-10-29, 07:24 AM
Blagging? Hmmmm. Informal conversation in a public place, often deceitful. Don't quite follow you there.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0083050#m_en_gb0083050

Blagging / blag [verb]: Fast-talking, smooth-talking.
eg: "I blagged my way past the doorstaff and into the VIP area"

In local gaming parlance:

Blag / Blaggy: Cheese/cheesy/optimised. Mechanically strong, perhaps overwhelming.
eg: "Initiates of the sevenfold veil are blaggy"
"No: You can't play a True Brujah. Temporis is far too blaggy"
"He's a really blaggy player"
[A GM, on inspecting a character sheet for potential trouble areas might ask the player] "Hmm... Where's the blag?"

Amphetryon
2010-10-29, 07:30 AM
It's as if the player thought that flavor was mutable or something, clearly. :smallsmile:

Psyx
2010-10-29, 07:39 AM
Wait, so having used a MM at some point and knowing a monster's stats is cheating? Or, again, is it the TIMING that's somehow at issue? Because that would make it really, really difficult for a group to rotate DMs, ever.

Despite having run D&D for a LOT of years, I've never actually read the MM. I look up what I need to, but I wouldn't read it per se, because I don't want to metagame or spoil my own enjoyment. I'm almost certainly not alone in this. It wouldn't be cheating for me to have read it in the past, but it would be meta of me to use that knowledge without IC justification. If I pulled out the MM and read it at the table mid-encounter with a critter, I would expect any GM that I have had experienced to throw something and tell me to put it away. Indeed: Traditionally tourney rules back in 2nd Ed always insisted that the players were only allowed the PHB at the table, so once again; this is clearly not an unusual thing.

You made a point of stating 'sitting around with friends and the PHB', which is indicative that you are aware of the fact that using the MM to plan tactics is at least morally ambiguous in some quarters, so you must see the point.



Also, I wasn't aware that the only advice given on the net is culled from the Monster Manual.


No, but advice offered WILL include some that is based on information. Unless you're typing to assert that everyone on the thread is only offering advice based on the PHB in IC experience - which we both know to be absurd. I've yet to see specific tactical advice on an encounter that didn't analyse factors such as DR and special abilities.



Finally, how exactly does the GM expressly forbid all OOC knowledge and actually expect a viable game to be played? How do they describe the directions the characters are moving?

You are being deliberately obtuse and absurd at this point.

Again: We play and run very different games it seems. What is not acceptable to the point where it would get me kicked out of any of the groups that I play with is acceptable within your own gaming circle.



So the player got attracted to that race by mechanical aspects. Does that mean he couldn't make an awesome character concept out of it?

We tend to operate a 'concept first, then mechanics' method of character generation where players at least make the pretence of wanting to play powerful characters 'for roleplay reasons'. Obviously that's a generalisation.
In this case though - though you weren't to know it [taking us back to the context thing of several pages back when I said that the gaming group should be first stop for answers] - the player in question was famously blaggy and doesn't tend to think in characterisation, but in terms of mechanics, and the GM did not want him playing a character effectively named 'Plus-Six Dex'oh' with a background of 'I blobbed into existence as a killing machine. Show me the XP and phat lewts'.

dsmiles
2010-10-29, 07:41 AM
So your DM would have preffered some made up excuse to play with the race rather than an honest "Its a powerful race and could make an interesting character concept?"

If you ever ask me wjy I'm using this or that my answer will generally one of the following "Its powerful and it fits my character concept" or "Its powerful and I've reflavoured it to fit my character concept"


That wouldn't fly with me as a DM. Anyone stating a reason for playing something as, "It's powerful and...," is denied. "It's powerful," doesn't jive with my DMing style. Sure you can have all of those nifty abilities, but what are you going to do in one of the sessions where nobody even picks up a die? If playing powerful characters is your thing, stay away from my campaigns, because you wouldn't enjoy them.
Now if you managed to come in with a valid backstory, and RP reason to play this race, you'd probably get to play whatever you wanted. If you came in and said, "I want to play one of these. Listen to this (insert dramatic backstory here)," you'd get a lot closer to playing that race. I might smack it with the nerf bat a little, so you didn't overpower the other characters, but fluff-wise it'd be the same race.


playing a character effectively named 'Plus-Six Dex'oh' with a background of 'I blobbed into existence as a killing machine. Show me the XP and phat lewts'.

I am totally stealing that for my next character. I don't care if it's got a dex penalty, I'm naming it "Plus-Six Dex'oh," and using that background.

LordBlades
2010-10-29, 07:57 AM
We tend to operate a 'concept first, then mechanics' method of character generation where players at least make the pretence of wanting to play powerful characters 'for roleplay reasons'. Obviously that's a generalisation.
In this case though - though you weren't to know it [taking us back to the context thing of several pages back when I said that the gaming group should be first stop for answers] - the player in question was famously blaggy and doesn't tend to think in characterisation, but in terms of mechanics, and the GM did not want him playing a character effectively named 'Plus-Six Dex'oh' with a background of 'I blobbed into existence as a killing machine. Show me the XP and phat lewts'.


That depends on gaming group I guess. In my group, we don't really care if you wrote a character story to fit a mechancial concept or the other way around as long as you have them both.

However, I do understand your problem with that certain player. He's an exception (most of us quite enjoy roleplaying) and I hate that kind of behaviour. About as much as I hate the exact opposite (the 'you know guys, think i'm going to bring a sword&board kobold fighter to your cleric,druid,wizard,psion party; i won't be able to do much in combat, basicly just leech xp and treasure, but I got a pretty cool back story' kind of guy).

Amphetryon
2010-10-29, 08:29 AM
No, but advice offered WILL include some that is based on information. Unless you're typing to assert that everyone on the thread is only offering advice based on the PHB in IC experience - which we both know to be absurd. I've yet to see specific tactical advice on an encounter that didn't analyse factors such as DR and special abilities.So you're typing to assert that all advice on the internet is instead based exclusively on analysis of the MM and not PHb info and IC experiences? How is that less 'absurd,' exactly?

Zaydos
2010-10-29, 08:36 AM
So you're typing to assert that all advice on the internet is instead based exclusively on analysis of the MM and not PHb info and IC experiences? How is that less 'absurd,' exactly?

Not exclusively, but people will begin stating "oh if you have DC X looking at its Will save it needs a Y to succeed". Also looking at the percentage of answers that are based off of "it has SR X" largely it is (yes I know AC and SR can be determined by fighting one; they also cite its saves which normally cannot be). The other hilarious thing is that many times the chance of a creature failing its save is listed as 5% more than it actually is (likely due to forgetting it only has to match the DC not beat it).

Note also I don't think a basic knowledge of the MM is wrong; I do think that actively looking up the stats for an enemy you are fighting is, though. The types of threads the OP mentioned are the latter.

Amphetryon
2010-10-29, 08:42 AM
they also cite its saves which normally cannot beIf the DM rolls in the open - many do - it's more than reasonable to figure out the saves, at least within a close enough range to account for individual DM preference for save boosters.

FelixG
2010-10-29, 08:54 AM
I have a friend who GMs so much he can pretty much tell you the stats to most of the critters in the MM without thinking too hard on it... So when something is thrown at him he just knows what to expect ect

So he is a cheater?

Boci
2010-10-29, 09:02 AM
That wouldn't fly with me as a DM. Anyone stating a reason for playing something as, "It's powerful and...," is denied. "It's powerful," doesn't jive with my DMing style. Sure you can have all of those nifty abilities, but what are you going to do in one of the sessions where nobody even picks up a die? If playing powerful characters is your thing, stay away from my campaigns, because you wouldn't enjoy them.
Now if you managed to come in with a valid backstory, and RP reason to play this race, you'd probably get to play whatever you wanted. If you came in and said, "I want to play one of these. Listen to this (insert dramatic backstory here)," you'd get a lot closer to playing that race. I might smack it with the nerf bat a little, so you didn't overpower the other characters, but fluff-wise it'd be the same race.

Its different play styles for a number of reasons.
1. I need my character to be optimized otherwise I loose interest in them and find it hard to roleplay them convincingly. I don't mind a whole game session were we don't touch dice (as long as they don't happen too many times in a row) aas long as I know that if orcs do suddenly ambush us I am well prepared to deal with them.
2. The way the society works at my uni you show the Dm your character sheet and then the game starts straight away, so unless you come prepared with a premade backstory you won't be able to write one, but even if you did the DM will be too busy helping the newbies with character gen to read it, so you always play before you write a background story unless you join a game late.

Obviously I will write a 1-2 page long character bacjground for any concept I want to play along with a section on personality and motivations, but that doesn't change the fact that 90% of the descions on my character sheet have been made because they're powerful.



We tend to operate a 'concept first, then mechanics' method of character generation where players at least make the pretence of wanting to play powerful characters 'for roleplay reasons'.

If you need me to make up a reason I will, but I prefer to just do that IC and just be stright OOC.

Psyx
2010-10-29, 09:06 AM
So you're typing to assert that all advice on the internet is instead based exclusively on analysis of the MM and not PHb info and IC experiences? How is that less 'absurd,' exactly?

Is there no statement or comment that you won't take to the extreme interpretation, rather than a reasonable one?
Reductio ad absurdum is not a particularly interesting strategy for debate. It's like talking to a parrot.

Tell you what: Find me say ten specific threads of the type discussed with a reasonable number of responses and let's poll how many include information from the MM as opposed to IC/PHB sources.



So he is a cheater?

For possessing knowledge? No. But if he used that knowledge when his character did not have access to it, he'd be metagaming and -by extension- roleplaying rather poorly.

Zaydos
2010-10-29, 09:12 AM
I have a friend who GMs so much he can pretty much tell you the stats to most of the critters in the MM without thinking too hard on it... So when something is thrown at him he just knows what to expect ect

So he is a cheater?

No. Now if he went and looked them up in response to fighting one, or memorized the MM for that specific purpose, that is a different story. If you're playing with someone who GMs you have to expect that they know plenty of monster stats.

Personally I didn't start memorizing things still I started homebrewing and saw patterns forming (which reminds me AC can tell you their hit die and therefore age category; of course only if you know what size category they are).

Amphetryon
2010-10-29, 09:13 AM
Is there no statement or comment that you won't take to the extreme interpretation, rather than a reasonable one?
Reductio ad absurdum is not a particularly interesting strategy for debate. It's like talking to a parrot.

Tell you what: Find me say ten specific threads of the type discussed with a reasonable number of responses and let's poll how many include information from the MM as opposed to IC/PHB sources.




For possessing knowledge? No. But if he used that knowledge when his character did not have access to it, he'd be metagaming and -by extension- roleplaying rather poorly.Your position is reasonable, but mine is extreme, based on what measure, exactly?

Ruinix
2010-10-29, 11:33 AM
oh men i love this kind of rerailment XDDD

a moment of beuty image come to my mind right now, i can't remember if was jakie chan or jason stagman who fight against a dozen or more henchmans with a lader !!!

in my next game i will toss to the players a druken master with dual weild 10 fts laders XDDDDD

also

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0903/derailed-train-derailed-thread-demotivational-poster-1237346157.jpg

Ozymandias9
2010-10-29, 11:56 AM
Your position is reasonable, but mine is extreme, based on what measure, exactly?

He's not saying "all;" he's saying "{He's} not seen." That's a drastic difference. The former is an absolute, the later indicates a tendency observed.

You're trying to undercut his position by pointing out that an absolute formulation of that position absurd. It is. It's also not his position.

Put another way, you're attempting to disprove his position using RaA proof by contradiction, but neglecting the fact that the logical extreme you propose is almost certainly not one that he would ascribe to.

Caphi
2010-10-29, 12:23 PM
That wouldn't fly with me as a DM. Anyone stating a reason for playing something as, "It's powerful and...," is denied.

This I have to oppose. The rest of the sentence could have been "and ". Are you also saying that someone bringing a race and opening with "it's weak, but" would be accepted even if he was going to continue by spewing out utter bilge of an actual character? That guy could be a loonie for all you know.

What's worse about being strong [i]and interesting such that you would prefer weak and interesting? How about weak and boring? Why do you even prefer helpless characters? Are they easier to railroad?

That went on a tangent there, but I'm really honestly confused.

Amphetryon
2010-10-29, 12:33 PM
Put another way, you're attempting to disprove his position using RaA proof by contradiction, but neglecting the fact that the logical extreme you propose is almost certainly not one that he would ascribe to.Given that, I'm interested in what the 'extremes' - the logical boundaries - of his position actually are. If they're not simply "the player phrased his request/advice in bad gamer-speak," then I'm listening. Thus far, that's how I'm reading the complaint.

dsmiles
2010-10-29, 12:46 PM
This I have to oppose. The rest of the sentence could have been "and ". Are you also saying that someone bringing a race and opening with "it's weak, but" would be accepted even if he was going to continue by spewing out utter bilge of an actual character? That guy could be a loonie for all you know.

What's worse about being strong [i]and interesting such that you would prefer weak and interesting? How about weak and boring? Why do you even prefer helpless characters? Are they easier to railroad?

That went on a tangent there, but I'm really honestly confused.

Nobody said they have to be weak, but the first words out of a player (in my group) shouldn't be about the ultimate cosmic power that the race has. What are they going to do when they don't have the opportunity to use that power? Sit and be bored? That's unacceptable, and there are a lot of sessions where "powerful" characters' players would just feel useless. No combat, no skill checks, no spells to be cast. Just converstations and roleplaying. If that particular player is a bad roleplayer, they will get bored during those types of sessions. Bored players are disruptive players. Disruptive players make the rest of the group mad. What's so hard about not using terms that imply "powerful" when you tell someone about the character you want to play?
As far as the player with the "weak" race, they'd get turned down just as fast. "Power level," be that weak or strong, isn't a reasonable justification for playing a particular race in the group I'm with. We're not a high-op group, and high-op characters in a low-op group (and low-op characters in a high-op group) tend to ruin everybody's fun. People who come in foaming at the mouth and spouting off about how powerful their characters are tend to leave our groups quickly. The opporunities to use that power just aren't there in the campaigns we play.
I'm not saying that you can't play a strong race, I'm just saying that I don't want to hear it every time I turn around. I don't even want to hear it once. If you're character is powerful, I'm pretty sure I'll see it when I review your character sheet to get the info I require as a DM.

kyoryu
2010-10-29, 01:05 PM
oh men i love this kind of rerailment XDDD

a moment of beuty image come to my mind right now, i can't remember if was jakie chan or jason stagman who fight against a dozen or more henchmans with a lader !!!


Jackie Chan. I want to say that was Rumble in the Bronx, but I could be wrong.


No. Now if he went and looked them up in response to fighting one, or memorized the MM for that specific purpose, that is a different story. If you're playing with someone who GMs you have to expect that they know plenty of monster stats.

On the other hand, a good roleplayer will deliberately not let his character use knowledge the character shouldn't have.


aas long as I know that if orcs do suddenly ambush us I am well prepared to deal with them.

See, I just don't get this, which is probably why I think optimization in RPGs is somewhat silly. At the end of the day, the DM is in control of what opponents you face, and so can make them tougher if the characters are more optimized. Whether you're prepared to deal with opponents that attack you or not is far more a matter of whether the DM is effective at creating encounters balanced to the party or not than it is a matter of *your* optimization.

Unless you're trying to "sneak one past" the DM by having your optimized combos be not obvious, in which case he'll wise up quickly and the encounters will adjust accordingly. Your party is far tougher than expected? Fine, I bump up the monsters' hp and damage accordingly. As a DM, I don't need to come up with rules for how I get bigger numbers - I get whatever numbers I want.

DMs don't need to make Pun-Pun. They *are* Pun-Pun.

Earthwalker
2010-10-30, 02:53 AM
I have a friend who GMs so much he can pretty much tell you the stats to most of the critters in the MM without thinking too hard on it... So when something is thrown at him he just knows what to expect ect

So he is a cheater?

If still believe using player knowledge to decide your characters actions when the character does not possess that knowledge is cheating.

So a player knowing the MM is not a cheat.

A player using that knowledge when his character does not is cheating.

Its a matter of meta gaming and also where you draw the line on what is cheating.

Its a role-playing game. Some people like the role playing more then the game, some like the game more then the role playing, some will like them both equally. Depending on that, has some bearing where you draw the line on meta gaming.

Earthwalker
2010-10-30, 03:28 AM
So you're typing to assert that all advice on the internet is instead based exclusively on analysis of the MM and not PHb info and IC experiences? How is that less 'absurd,' exactly?

Please look at the thread that started this debate, the how can my lvl 10 party kill a balor thread. ( I think this is a good example as it is what started this thread after all ) then look at the advice given you wilkl clearly see the advice is based on what abilities and weaknesses a Balor has, all this is based on information from the MM


If the DM rolls in the open - many do - it's more than reasonable to figure out the saves, at least within a close enough range to account for individual DM preference for save boosters.

Again in the Balor example the characters have never faced a Balor before, they would not have this information as they have never cast a spell on one, the GM rolling in the open isn't an issue.

I feel using player information when the character does not possess that information is cheating.

I do agree with you on some points, if in the past the characters had foght a Balor then the characters would know the abilities so the advice wouldn't be too out of hand.

Boci
2010-10-30, 02:08 PM
See, I just don't get this, which is probably why I think optimization in RPGs is somewhat silly. At the end of the day, the DM is in control of what opponents you face, and so can make them tougher if the characters are more optimized. Whether you're prepared to deal with opponents that attack you or not is far more a matter of whether the DM is effective at creating encounters balanced to the party or not than it is a matter of *your* optimization.

I believe heroes should be optimized. Its the natrual selection of teachings: those that are weak die out as the practicers of them are killed by monsters and only the powerful survive.
Now if there's someone else in the group who has a different opinion on the power level of heroes, I don't mind, but I will occassionally offer advice on how to make your character more effective which you are free to ignore or accept.
As long as each party members contributes, people who don't care about optimization generally don't mind me either, since I do roleplay as well.


What are they going to do when they don't have the opportunity to use that power? Sit and be bored?

No, join in with the roleplaying enthusiastically since I can easily connect to an optimized character.


What's so hard about not using terms that imply "powerful" when you tell someone about the character you want to play?

My like of consistancy and honesty.


I'm not saying that you can't play a strong race, I'm just saying that I don't want to hear it every time I turn around. I don't even want to hear it once. If you're character is powerful, I'm pretty sure I'll see it when I review your character sheet to get the info I require as a DM.

Then don't ask me as a person why I choose anything. You will find most of the IC choices explained in my back story. Feel free to ask me anything I missed, as long as it would be my character replying.

kyoryu
2010-10-30, 06:52 PM
I believe heroes should be optimized. Its the natrual selection of teachings: those that are weak die out as the practicers of them are killed by monsters and only the powerful survive.
Now if there's someone else in the group who has a different opinion on the power level of heroes, I don't mind, but I will occassionally offer advice on how to make your character more effective which you are free to ignore or accept.
As long as each party members contributes, people who don't care about optimization generally don't mind me either, since I do roleplay as well.

So you've hit on something there - what's important is that the party, as a whole, is at relatively close optimization levels.

So, let me ask you this question: Just in terms of DPR, how much is enough?

Boci
2010-10-30, 07:20 PM
So you've hit on something there - what's important is that the party, as a whole, is at relatively close optimization levels.

So, let me ask you this question: Just in terms of DPR, how much is enough?

Kinda hard to measure it in that sense. I'm usually happy with a martial adept who has a solid selection of feats, or something of equal value. I don't play characters who only ability is damage.

JonestheSpy
2010-10-31, 06:19 PM
Since we've gone back to the original topic after that fascinating tangent about 10 foot ladders, I'd like to just reiterate that I was originally discussing was not just people sharing data about monster stats, but actual tactics, strategy, and general advice - fight, flee, negotiate, etc - in facing a particular challenge.

That's a far different - and far worse, imho - thing than simply telling people what's in the rulebooks, though that can be not cricket as well. I figure that there's lots and lots of players out there who DM as well, or are just the types who devour game rules for fun. An honor system about character knowledge is really the best solution there. But getting told do X, Y and/or Z to overcome a specific rough spot is just lame.

As I've said, it's about figuring it out for yourself, actually roleplaying instead just trying to 'win' against an encounter or other obstacle.

Ragitsu
2010-11-30, 09:17 AM
I've actually seen this happen many times.

Is the phenomenon unique to D&D/level based games?

Psyx
2010-11-30, 09:42 AM
It's commonly occurring on this specific forum. I daresay forums swaying towards other specific games suffer the same issue.

Gnaritas
2010-11-30, 09:56 AM
I did not read the entire thread, but as a DM

- i would not like the party to discuss their tactics with each other when they are in combat.
- i would have no problem with a player asking for advice, i know my players will act in-character and even if their action is not something they thought of themselves, but definitely in character, then by all means do so. Bonus points if it's an awesomely surprising action.


I'd like to just reiterate that I was originally discussing was not just people sharing data about monster stats, but actual tactics, strategy, and general advice - fight, flee, negotiate, etc - in facing a particular challenge.
That's a far different - and far worse, imho - thing than simply telling people what's in the rulebooks, though that can be not cricket as well.

I am of a different opinion. If my players would go look for the stats of the monster they are facing i would not be amused, that would be metagaming. If they take advice on what to do next, i don't have much problems with that, see the beginning of this post.

Example:
Session ended with the party fighting the BBEG. BBEG introduces himself as Steve the Warlock. Player X asks what a Warlock is, the DM lets you roll knowledge and says: "your character doesn't know that, so i am not gonna tell you so there is no metagaming, you are gonna have to go by his actions or looks to figure things out".
When the session ends player X goes to look for what a Warlock is and does. BAD! even though it is not really secret information, you shouldn't try to get metagame information you shouldn't have.

Same session:
Player X asks advice. He believes the Flying Warlock is about to flee from his tower through the open window. He want to know how to stop him, he gets advice on how to do this, people say he could cast a wall of stone into the window, try to grapple him, dispel his fly ability, grow large and block the window, ready a gust of wind.....
Is this really that bad? Not in my opinion.

Sleepingbear
2010-11-30, 12:27 PM
I have a friend that will be joining my campaign shortly. I've gamed with him before and I know what he's like. He wants to play a melee character but also wants the AWESOME GAME BREAKING COSMIC POWER. Now, the games he's played in the past were not D&D or D20.

So I point him in the direction of several character classes and prestige classes as well as builds that will satisfy his desires as a player. Naturally I also give him explicit house rules and a list of material that is acceptable.

Soon he's asking me about things from Dungeon and Dragon Magazine (not on the acceptable list). I know he doesn't have these so I suspect that he's getting build advice online. Since I frequently lurk or post on such forums, it's not long before I find him.

I give him reasonable advice on his builds. He takes the broken advice of others and runs it by me on MSN. I reject it, pointing out how it's explicitely against the house rules as laid out.

So I offer the Pun-Pun build on the forum.

He goes for it.

I laugh as I reject it.

I mention this because he's the type to come to forums like this one to get advice in between sessions on how to handle tactical situations.

And I'll be watching and waiting.

Because what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

In fact, there is scenerio I can see happenning...

The group is in a massive underground dungeon that is infested by Goblins. The characters have had several encounters with these Goblins and are currently on the run from a horde of the little monsters.

Due to time constraints, the session ends with the characters surrounded.

My buddy goes online and asks for help, detailing the situation. Forum goers respond with brilliant tactical advice.

At the start of the next session, the Goblins all suddenly pale and run away.

Oh look. A Balor.
:smallcool:

Amphetryon
2010-11-30, 02:07 PM
I did not read the entire thread, but as a DM

- i would not like the party to discuss their tactics with each other when they are in combat.

<snip>
So, you'd have problems with the party Rogue calling for the party Fighter to come help him flank a dangerous enemy? That's discussing tactics in combat. So is asking for a healing potion or CLW during the fight, come to think of it.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-30, 02:23 PM
So, you'd have problems with the party Rogue calling for the party Fighter to come help him flank a dangerous enemy? That's discussing tactics in combat. So is asking for a healing potion or CLW during the fight, come to think of it.

I think it is fairly obvious that he is talking about in depth conversations, like "and after I kill the troll I want you to cast Glitterdust on the northern quadrant of the room, whilst I pop a wheelie and dis arm the BBEG." If your in the middle of combat you don't have time to say all that; a maximum of 5 words per round per person would be more reasonable.

Boci
2010-11-30, 02:33 PM
I think it is fairly obvious that he is talking about in depth conversations, like "and after I kill the troll I want you to cast Glitterdust on the northern quadrant of the room, whilst I pop a wheelie and dis arm the BBEG." If your in the middle of combat you don't have time to say all that; a maximum of 5 words per round per person would be more reasonable.

"Glitterdust, northern quadrant/over there"

Amphetryon
2010-11-30, 02:35 PM
I think it is fairly obvious that he is talking about in depth conversations, like "and after I kill the troll I want you to cast Glitterdust on the northern quadrant of the room, whilst I pop a wheelie and dis arm the BBEG." If your in the middle of combat you don't have time to say all that; a maximum of 5 words per round per person would be more reasonable.

"Ragnar, come over here and help"... darn it. Ran out of words.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-30, 02:35 PM
"Glitterdust, northern quadrant/over there"

I would be okay with that :D