Question about Metagaming

[Talakeal]

Last night I was describing a monster that the player characters had never seen before. One of the players, who recognized it based on the description, immediately pulled out the monster manual and passed it around for the other players to read its entry.

I am curious, what would you have done in that situation?

[The Insanity]

I would change the monster's stats to something else.
Besides, why are players even looking at a Monster Manual? That's for DM eyes only.

[Anymage]

Besides, why are players even looking at a Monster Manual? That's for DM eyes only.

In the abstract, players can reasonably want to know the lore behind various D&D critters, and might well want to have DMG/MM if they might want to run a game themselves. Although in practice, book diving at the table is particularly bad form.

Personally speaking, having dealt with book diving players, I've developed a habit of refluffing liberally and am pretty open that anything that I have not specifically said is not yet set in stone. And that I will cheerfully change lore or minor monster statistics if I see anyone going through a book or their phone.

[GloatingSwine]

Take the book off them.

If it's theirs give it back at the end of the session.

You can't stop a player knowing things, but getting the book out and stopping play for everyone to gawk at it is bad for the game.

[Mechalich]

Last night I was describing a monster that the player characters had never seen before. One of the players, who recognized it based on the description, immediately pulled out the monster manual and passed it around for the other players to read its entry.

I am curious, what would you have done in that situation?

Whether or not a player recognizes a monster based on a description should be irrelevant, because it matters not one whit to the character if their player possesses that knowledge. This is one of those cases, probably the most common case, where enforcing player/character separation is essential.

If the characters have never seen a monster before, there is still a chance they might recognize the monster from a glimpse and even understand many of its abilities - and in D&D there are provisions in the skill system for this. In theory a character with a sufficiently high result on a knowledge check could conceivably know everything in a monster's MM entry. Of course, that information isn't shared. Whatever one character knows has to be communicated, in play, to the other characters. So even if one character might conceivably be allowed to play an encounter out with the MM entry as an open reference no other character gets to do that unless they've made an equally comprehensive knowledge check.

Now, to be fair, maintaining player/character separation with regard to things like monster stats can be hard. People remember things about certain monsters and just intuitively pass that knowledge onto their characters (often about immunities, or DR, or similar sort of things), and its the GMs responsibility to police actions and step in at times to say 'your character doesn't necessarily know that, make a skill check to see if they do.'

Also, more broadly, no one should be passing around any book at a table save for the purpose of rules clarifications, and effort should be taken to minimize this; notably by making it clear that players are responsible for knowing how the character's abilities work without needing to constantly look them up.

[GloatingSwine]

Now, to be fair, maintaining player/character separation with regard to things like monster stats can be hard. People remember things about certain monsters and just intuitively pass that knowledge onto their characters (often about immunities, or DR, or similar sort of things), and its the GMs responsibility to police actions and step in at times to say 'your character doesn't necessarily know that, make a skill check to see if they do.'

Trying to police the contents of your players' brains is not a recipe for happy players and a fun session (and is just as much metagaming as them using the knowledge they have as players). Don't rely on player ignorance to make the encounter challenging in the first place.

[animorte]

Yes, at that moment I would have modified something on the spot (or maybe the model I have was different all along) without saying that to anybody (done it before). Everybody gets that gleam of knowledge and combat prep going, but then we roll initiative.

“Woah but it says here the thing isn't immune to fire!?”

“But the average HP of this thing is only 68, it should be dead by now!?”

I’m ok with a person knowing it and trying to work in that knowledge, but there’s no reason that every character should be expected to know every single detail about any given enemy. I’ve also had skill checks on knowledge/survival rolled to determine how much (if any) of the stat block I improvise…

I made comments on another thread about this a couple months ago. People have a serious issue with immersion. There’s no logical reason to assume that any of your characters have ever even heard about this thing, and even if you have, that doesn’t mean that every single one is expected to be the same. Just like our PC classes. Just because you have a Cleric (or insert any class) in every campaign doesn’t mean each one will have the same subclass/weapons/background/feats.

[Vahnavoi]

90% of time I don't bat an eyelid, because the equivalent of "Monster Manual" in my games is meant to represent a body of information that is available to the player characters. If a player correctly infers information from a description and uses an information resource that I've given them, they aren't metagaming. They're just gaming.

So what about the other 10% of time?

Well: the basics of roleplaying game for a player is that they're trying to decide what to do, how and why, from the perspective of some character in some situation. There are a few corollaries to this:

1) anything knowable to a character must be knowable to some real entity at the table (game characters are not independent entities, they do not truly know anything)
2) any knowledge meant to be actionable for a character must be knowable by their player (meaning either the player has to already know or have the power to decide what their character knows, or at minimum the game master has to tell them)
3) any knowledge meant to NOT be actionable for a character must either be hidden from a player or they must be informed they cannot use it

Particular rules systems may have opinions on 2) and 3). Modern versions of D&D, for example, gatekeep actionable information behind die rolls: shortly, on a winning roll, you are allowed some actionable information per unit of time, and ONLY the amount of actionable information per unit of time indicated by that roll. The corollary is that on a failed roll, you are NOT allowed to act on that information, nor are you allowed to act on information that you've yet to receive. Players should be aware of this, meaning they should be aware of AND fine with the idea that the roles they are playing in the game sometimes require them to deliberately act more ignorant than they really are. Attempting to bypass the rules, such as by reading and acting on information directly from a non-player resource, is a foul, and the game master has the right to prohibit such course of action.

In practice, trying to be strict on this is more trouble than it's worth, which leads to concept of plausible action: namely, the game master shouldn't care how the player came to know a thing or settled on a course of action, as long as the whats, hows and whys their character actions in the game remain plausible. The game master still reserves the right to challenge any detail of the player's action as well as right to demand that they choose to act differently if said details are found lacking.

For example: a game master describes monsters attacking a camp at night. A player (correctly) guesses the monsters are trolls and has their character pick up a burning torch to fend the monsters off. The game master may well know the player has guessed the monsters are trolls, but there is no reason to proclaim the act a foul: picking up a burning torch is a plausible action to take against a wide variety of monsters and doesn't actually require the character to know they are trolls in particular.

If the player, as their character, says "begone, foul trolls!", then a game master might ask "how or why does your character believe they are trolls?". Again, there are lot of plausible answers to that question that a sane game master would accept; it's only when no plausible answer exists that there's a reason to proclaim it a foul. In practice, I've found players are quick to call each other out on blatantly implausible or out-of-character statements.

In summary: a game master should be as open as possible about what kind of information the players' characters know or don't know, as well as what kind of information the players are allowed to act on or not. Metagaming is only a foul when in contradiction of such statements.

[InvisibleBison]

If the guy has the Monster Manual, I can only assume he's familiar with its contents, which means him looking at it mid-game doesn't really change anything vis-a-vis metagaming or player/character knowledge separation. Sure, looking it up may make him more certain about its written stats, but he had some idea what they were even before hand. Checking the book only changes the magnitude of the issue, it doesn't create it.

So what would I do if I had a player who was using out-of-character knowledge of monster stats to be more effective in combat? Honestly, I don't think I'd do anything. There's no way to eliminate metagaming around out-of-character knowledge, and there's no real reason to prefer "a PC knows something just because their player knows it" to "the player tries to guess how long they should pretend to not know trolls are vulnerable to fire".



Besides, why are players even looking at a Monster Manual? That's for DM eyes only.

What if this person is a player in one game and a DM in another? The notion of players and DMs being separate groups is a false dichotomy.

[Keltest]

What if this person is a player in one game and a DM in another? The notion of players and DMs being separate groups is a false dichotomy.

Even if he is, pulling out the monster manual and passing it around was bad form, period, unless he's the DM for this particular table. Its one thing to be kind of familiar with the statblock and vaguely remember what it does, but actively looking up and sharing a nominally unknown monster's weaknesses and strengths without the in-character knowledge to earn is is pure metagaming and should be shot down.

[Mastikator]

I concur with change the monster's stats and take the monster manual away from them. I'd also tell them that I would have to change the stats because they're not supposed to metagame. I'd also start looking for new players if the current ones can't behave at the table because that was way over the line. It's one thing to know what the monster is, but stopping mid game to show the stats to the other players is outrageous in my opinion. If someone did that in any group I've played with everyone would groan and cringe and call that player a cheater.

[KorvinStarmast]

You can't stop a player knowing things, but getting the book out and stopping play for everyone to gawk at it is bad for the game. Amen. I am not an advocate of book diving in play. Keep your PHB handy, and your notes, and your character sheet, and let's play!

In online play, though, a lot of people make quick references to stuff on D&D Beyond (or other such things) which is sometimes helpful and other times obstructive. As a DM if someone is lore diving during combat I'll mention something. Not in combat doesn't generally matter.

The lore dive is a mixed bag. The characters in the world know the world better than the people playing the game do. I have noticed that most players don't do much prep outside of a game session. Expecting them to be fully up on a full life lived in that world is not realistic.

While some info is gated under lore/history/arcana/whathaveyou checks, sometimes it's better for them to do a brief lore / rules dive ... Outside of Combat.

Last night one of our players was mumbling around about whether or not to throw a dagger, and she asked about the range. (rather than look in her PHB). It took me a couple of seconds to post the 20/60 in the chat (fellow player, not DM) and off we went. Some players cannot be bothered to know the details; in that case overburdening the DM with taking care of them seems unfair.
I also had to remind a few folks how Sacred flame worked so that play would continue. (DM sent me a PM thanking me for helping).

Each table needs to find their sweet spot in this regard.

[Quertus]

Sigh. So, the answer differs slightly depending upon where on the “Bizarro World” spectrum you live.

In Rainbows and “it’s so fluffy I’m gonna die” unicorns land, where I apparently came from, you can talk to your players like reasonable adults, explain that roleplaying is good, metagaming is of the Dark Side, and only have to worry about things like “My Guy” becoming the path to sainthood.

In full-on Bizarro World, metagaming shouldn’t just be assumed, it should actively be encouraged and enabled, by printing out and handing out all the monster stat blocks the moment that the monster is first described.

Irl, things are a bit trickier.

Irl, there’s joy in the known, and joy in the unknown, and the techniques for enabling and fostering each differ. Know your players, and build the skills to foster both - in the same game, or even the same encounter. It’s like the irl skill of being able to be in a conversation with a group that includes both those who believe in Santa Clause, and those who don’t, or those who think <political figure of your choice> is awesome and those who think they’re Hitler.

Irl, there’s “what the players know”, and “what the characters know”, and the techniques for resolving (or ignoring) each type of imbalance differ. If you’re gonna care, err on the side of making sure that the players know at least as much as their characters (see also “recap”, “Rule of Three”).

As to the answer to the question that was asked? The answer is “mu”. If I were GM at Talakeal’s table, I would never find myself in that situation. I would be handing out stat cards for anything that was recognizable; on those really rare occasions when they encounter something like a Snergleflerp (secretly a Snergleflerp golem, possessed by the spirit of a Snergleflerp gardener), the players, characters, rule books, and mythology / RPG sections of the local library would all be equally clueless.

[Satinavian]

Last night I was describing a monster that the player characters had never seen before. One of the players, who recognized it based on the description, immediately pulled out the monster manual and passed it around for the other players to read its entry.

I am curious, what would you have done in that situation?I would have politely asked to not do so if there was indeed reading going on. I might have encouraged a look a the picture however. And my players would have respected my wish. Usually such a situation doesn't even happen in te first place without me having to do or say something.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Trying to police the contents of your players' brains is not a recipe for happy players and a fun session (and is just as much metagaming as them using the knowledge they have as players). Don't rely on player ignorance to make the encounter challenging in the first place.

This, oh so very this!

I've made it a rule that I don't make a rule about it. Players can know things. It's one of the few benefits experienced players have over inexperienced ones. They know things, how things work. You can't stop them from knowing things.

Now, I'd say pulling out a book in the midst of the action is just wrong. Responding to that by changing the statblock on the fly is dubious, as it feels kinda DM vs player(s). And if the players get that vibe, your game may be done.

In the end, you as DM are in charge of making sure everyone has fun. Take it up with the player out of session and tell them what you expect in the future. I don't blame you for not covering this in session zero.

[GloatingSwine]

Changing the statblock might work with some groups, but you could just bump 1-2 numbers up a point or so and say "this looks like an unusually large and powerful version of X"*.

(But not if this is the group with Bob in because that's the rest of the evening then).


*An easy way to make slightly easier or stronger variants of monsters would be handy in general.

[False God]

I generally ask my players not to pull books out at the table ahead of time. Players should know their class, their spells, their summons well enough to not need the book around for ease-of-play reasons. If they have questions, they can ask me or the co-DM.

If a player knows what this monster is, I give them the option to make a appropriate skill-check for their character to also know this information, and then convey what the player knows to the other players. Unless I'm running an isekai-style game where the player's brain is in the PC's body and then the player is free to share what they know, but not go book diving(unless you were summoned to another world with your cell phone).

If/when people start pulling out books, I politely ask them to stop, and if they refuse, to leave.

[Composer99]

What I would do as DM depends on the following:

(1) How much time is the player using up to show off the creature? A quick glance is probably fine, but taking up too much time and slowing the pace of the game is inconsiderate.

(2) To what extent do other players at the table value maintaining an imagined separation between their own knowledge and what they take their characters' knowledge to be? And to what extent do I as DM/GM value the table writ large maintaining this separation? The more that people at the table value establishing such a separation, the less patience I'll have for such book-diving.

(3) To what extent do players at the table prefer immersion in the fiction over engaging with the mechanics - to the extent that they perceive there to be a conflict between the two? And to what extent do I as DM/GM value the table writ large experience immersion in the fiction over engaging with the mechanics - to the extent that I perceive there to be a conflict between the two? The more players I know who have such preference, and the stronger I know that preference to be, the less patience I'll have with such book-diving.

(4) Is the game we're playing one that emphasises mystery and confronting the unknown? The more that's true, the less patience I'll have for book-diving.

(5) Is the game we're playing one that emphasises what you might call Gygaxian "skilled play"? The more that's true, the less expectation there is for an imagined separation between player and character knowledge.

Personally, as regards (2) or (3), I'm not terribly concerned about such things myself, but if any of my players were really bothered by metagaming-style behaviours, I'd certainly want to tamp down on it. (1) is a consideration at all times, of course. (4) and (5) are going to depend on the game system and the specifics of the campaign/adventure/module.

[Thrudd]

I would have said "no monster manual or D&D wiki at the table, please." Of course, it's fine that players recognize a monster and remember something about them, even blurt it out to the other players, you shouldn't expect to prevent that when you're using published material with experienced players. But a hard line needs to be drawn with actually looking up statblocks.

I suppose some tables could have a culture where this is acceptable, and the manual is treated as a resource for players to strategize. In this case, I imagine you'd be treating the game in a much more competitive, battle-game manner - if players have access to all the details of their opponent's abilities, you can ramp up the challenge with tactics, free to play as though the monsters have knowledge of their characters' abilities as well.

[animorte]

if players have access to all the details of their opponent's abilities, you can ramp up the challenge with tactics, free to play as though the monsters have knowledge of their characters' abilities as well.

I’ve done this before as well. “You guys have gotten pretty popular around here and word travels. A notable amount of individuals are starting to learn what you’re capable of and attempting to prepare themselves. It’s only natural.”

[kyoryu]

It's kind of a jerk move, and I'd probably raise an eyebrow, but at the end of the day I probably wouldn't care.

My view is that if knowing the monster stats trivializes an encounter, it's a garbage encounter. And nothing irritates me more than playing the game of "oh, I know the stats, but my player shouldn't, so I have to do deliberately dumb things until the GM has decided I know enough to play smart."

[Easy e]

I would not care, because it is their choice about how they want to play the game. If it is not spoiling anyone's fun, than it is not going to spoil mine; because I am the GM and I can make the rules whatever I want anyway.

That said, I would have turned the spotlight at whoever had the book on them at any one time, so no one really had much time more than to glance at it, because they were too busy doing stuff at the table; like deciding how to respond when they saw X, or have to tell me their AC to avoid an attack, or move the monster so they have to decide to take an opportunity attack, etc. The book would eventually get set down along the path, and not picked up again as everyone was forced to move on.

I do the same thing with people who take out their phones. There is no rule about no phones at the table. I suddenly just change scenes to them, ask them a question, or move the spotlight. One of a GM's most powerful tools is their ability to set the pace and flow of the game. You can always move the spotlight to who ever, where ever, and when ever you want; regardless of Initiative order or anything else going on.

However, it is seriously bad form, but I would not bother raising the subject with Talakael's group as it would be more trouble than it was worth. LOL

[gbaji]

I always try to run games with a separation between player knowledge and character knowledge. Obviously, it's pretty much impossible to police what a player knows inside their own head, and yeah, some players are better at roleplaying their characters based on what their character would know than others. Also, I've noticed a strong tendency that when it's an action/decision point rather than color RP, player will tend to manifest their knowledge pretty significantly. Honestly though, there's not a lot you can do about that as a GM. The character that uses his primary +x weapon all the time (cause it does the most damage) magically decides to draw a secondary weapon that has a fire damage effect just coincidentally when fighting a monster that takes extra damage to fire? Eh. It happens.

Looking up the statblock of a creature during play? Way out of bounds IMO. If the player feels the need to do that, it's because he knows what the monster *is*, but doesn't necessarily remember all the details. That's going a step beyond "gee, I remember that these things are vulnerable to fire", and into "I need to know everything about it" territory.

I'll also point out that as a GM, if you are even semi firm about character vs player knowledge, the rules have to also work in reverse. If a character should know something about a creature they encounter (due to lore rolls, or having encountered them personally before), then you have to tell them things about the creature. The characters live their lives 24/7, the player lives the character's lives a few hours a week (maybe). You cannot be the GM that tells your players they can't look stuff up but *also* insist that "if you didn't think of it, then your character didn't".

That's also out of bounds.

Personally, I try to avoid being in situations where knowing the stats of a creature really matter that much. It's a problem that's more inherent to D&D (and similar) type games where there are generic monsters to be fought, and knowing the odd particulars of that monster matter a lot. I suppose that's always the case with non-intelligent monsters/animals, but once you get into any creature that is intelligent and can use tools, and can learn magic, skills, feats, whatever, the encounter should vary much more based on those things. A fight with the Orc priest of <whatever> (and followers) vs the Drow priest of <whatever2> (and followers) should vary more about who <whatever> is, and what special skills, items, spells, etc they're going to pit against you than that one group is Orcs and one group Drow.

[NichG]

If I'm using something from a publically available source or with existing strong cultural identity, I'm doing so because I want people to recognize it. So if the players go book diving on hearing a description, great I guess! It can be a bit of a problem if I'm expecting to lean on e.g. the mythological resonance but not the specific D&D stats, whereas the players assume the reverse. But that's a self-correcting problem...

If I need something the PCs can't just automatically recognize, I'll just make a new thing entirely.

[icefractal]

While usually it doesn't matter whether the players have meta-knowledge (in that it wouldn't make the fight boring), I do think actually pulling out and passing around the MM is bad form.

If it happened, I'd probably just say something like "and your characters know all this?" with a raised eyebrow. And in every group I've run for, people would put it away. But if they didn't, I wouldn't change the state for that fight (because if the players are belligerent then doing so would start a pissing match), I'd just use more homebrew and reskinned stuff going forward.

[Pex]

Last night I was describing a monster that the player characters had never seen before. One of the players, who recognized it based on the description, immediately pulled out the monster manual and passed it around for the other players to read its entry.

I am curious, what would you have done in that situation?

Taken the book away and tell the player not to do it again.

[The Insanity]

What if this person is a player in one game and a DM in another? The notion of players and DMs being separate groups is a false dichotomy.
It's irrelevant what they are outside of Talakeal's game. There they are players.

[MoiMagnus]

Last night I was describing a monster that the player characters had never seen before. One of the players, who recognized it based on the description, immediately pulled out the monster manual and passed it around for the other players to read its entry.

I am curious, what would you have done in that situation?

It depends what kind of campaign I'm running. Depending on the campaign, I might:

Object because I don't like peoples reading books at the middle of the game. It kills the pacing of the session. This applies to games that are fast paced, not the campaigns where the players are gonna take ages to craft strategies and tactics.
Object because I don't want players using meta-informations. In those campaigns I usually homebrew monsters quite a lot, but sometimes I don't. In any case I'd probably get back my Monster Manual since that's either a spoiler or a waste of time. Additionally, there is kind of an implicit rule IMO that if the GM avoids to say the actual name of the creature, then you're not supposed to look at its abilities: if that was acceptable, they would have dropped the name at one point to ease your search.
Be fine with it since it means that I won't need to answer additional questions about what the monster look like and how it behaves. And it's not hard to justify it in-universe. You said "that the player characters had never seen before", but how much is that a fact? PCs, or relatives of the PCs, might have encountered one before.

[gbaji]

I think there's also a big factor of the game system you are playing as well. In many games (and definitely in D&D), there are specific character skills that allow them to identify and know things about creatures/monsters/whatever that they encounter. If there is some sort of knowledge abilities in game and available to PCs that provides this information, but you as a GM allow the players to look stuff up, then you are effectively nullifying the reason for these skills existing. This is especially important in game systems (which is pretty much all of them), in which there is some sort of opportunity cost to having one skill/feat/whatever on the character sheet instead of another.

Obviously, you can never erase what's inside a players head to enforce them acting only on character knowledge (muahahah. That would be an evil genius thing to create though). So it's not ever going to be perfect. But yeah, I think prohibiting players from actually looking up source books about the things they are fighting is a perfectly reasonable position for a GM to take. I'm honestly scratching my head trying to think of any legitimate reason why any player would have a problem with this.

[Tanarii]

I am curious, what would you have done in that situation?
I'd have reminded them the table rule is no books or devices at the table.

[animorte]

Obviously, you can never erase what's inside a players head to enforce them acting only on character knowledge (muahahah. That would be an evil genius thing to create though).

You're onto something here. I wish I could put on this here Headband of Immersion every once in a while so I could appreciate my PC and the environment better.

For many people it would honestly probably make much better decisions (naturally there are always exceptions). Anybody ever put themselves in that survival mindset? This could be playing any type of game and think, "What would I really do if put in this situation and legitimately trying to stay alive." Makes me think of Jumanji.

[Jay R]

"Put that book down and make a relevant Knowledge check."

[Witty Username]

Last night I was describing a monster that the player characters had never seen before. One of the players, who recognized it based on the description, immediately pulled out the monster manual and passed it around for the other players to read its entry.

I am curious, what would you have done in that situation?

This during combat?
I think I would be more miffed about the play grinding to a stop depending on how long they took.

My playgroup tends to prefer looking at book after successful Int checks. And uses a decent chuck of homebrew monsters, so it doesn't come up as much.

[Talakeal]

Ok, so now that I have some responses:

What I did was say to the players "Guys, please cut the meta-gaming," in as mild and neutral a voice as I could.

They put the book away and didn't bring it up again, but they gave me some pretty dirty looks as they did so.

[Curbludgeon]

Leaning into Knowledge checks for monster identification, tweaking numbers, and reminders about the separation between player and character knowledge is one thing, while performatively confiscating books to return after class is another. Unless one is playing with one's own children the GM is not the parent of the players; defining the power dynamic at the table in such a way is not only patronizing, but is frequently indicative of an ulterior motive best removed from the playspace.

[animorte]

Leaning into Knowledge checks for monster identification, tweaking numbers, and reminders about the separation between player and character knowledge is one thing, while performatively confiscating books to return after class is another. Unless one is playing with one's own children the GM is not the parent of the players; defining the power dynamic at the table in such a way is not only patronizing, but is frequently indicative of an ulterior motive best removed from the playspace.

Shorthand: They can’t sift through books if books are not present.

[kyoryu]

So the problem around metagaming (when it comes to creature stats) comes down to a simple thing: It's harder to fight creatures if you don't know what they do.

In some cases the difference is minor - an orc is an orc, knowing its exact AC doesn't impact that much. In some cases, the difference is major - at the extreme end you get creatures that are basically invulnerable unless you know their weakness, at which point they become trivial.

So as a GM you have two options, really: You balance the encounters assuming the players do know the stats, or you balance them knowing that the players don't know the stats.

I prefer balancing the game presuming they know the stats. I'll pretty much die on this hill, for a few reasons:

1. Some players will know the stats from having seen the creature before. Presuming they know the stats makes this a non-issue. If you presume they don't know, then you either let the encounter be trivialized or you play the weird game of "do enough dumb things to get permission to do smart things", which isn't really that much fun for most people.

2. If you presume that the players do know the stats, then encounter design becomes more about how to deal with it, which starts to get into interesting tactics, timing, etc., rather than "guess the weakness". I personally prefer this style of game.

3. If players don't know the stats, it's pretty easy to give them sufficient descriptions of the stats - plus knowledge checks, etc. are a thing.

Not playing the "hidden information" game with monster stats just solves so many problems.

[Thrudd]

So the problem around metagaming (when it comes to creature stats) comes down to a simple thing: It's harder to fight creatures if you don't know what they do.

In some cases the difference is minor - an orc is an orc, knowing its exact AC doesn't impact that much. In some cases, the difference is major - at the extreme end you get creatures that are basically invulnerable unless you know their weakness, at which point they become trivial.

So as a GM you have two options, really: You balance the encounters assuming the players do know the stats, or you balance them knowing that the players don't know the stats.

I prefer balancing the game presuming they know the stats. I'll pretty much die on this hill, for a few reasons:

1. Some players will know the stats from having seen the creature before. Presuming they know the stats makes this a non-issue. If you presume they don't know, then you either let the encounter be trivialized or you play the weird game of "do enough dumb things to get permission to do smart things", which isn't really that much fun for most people.

2. If you presume that the players do know the stats, then encounter design becomes more about how to deal with it, which starts to get into interesting tactics, timing, etc., rather than "guess the weakness". I personally prefer this style of game.

3. If players don't know the stats, it's pretty easy to give them sufficient descriptions of the stats - plus knowledge checks, etc. are a thing.

Not playing the "hidden information" game with monster stats just solves so many problems.

There's a place for "hidden information" encounters, it can be fun for an initial encounter, but it can't be a permanent situation - unless your game is structured as a "monster of the week" type thing, where there's a new custom monster to learn about and fight in each session. The first time they run into a new creature, it's scary, they're figuring out how it works. Subsequent encounters with the creature type involve strategizing how best to deal with its strengths and exploit weaknesses.

I wouldn't expect this to work for any creature that's published in a book, however, unless it's unique to a module that I've confirmed nobody at the table has looked at (which is the only way I'd run a module in the first place). Using published information means someone at the table probably knows what it is, and whatever they remember about it is fine, and their characters' knowledge skills can probably fill in the rest of the gaps if it's really important. I agree that it is stupid and pointless to expect players to pretend they don't know how a monster works, risking the lives of their characters until some arbitrary point when they think they've RP'd their ignorance long enough and just happen to "discover" it's weakness.

If you want some mystery, you need to create a custom creature so you know nobody at the table has seen it before. Finding out information about the creature could be a fun element of the game that will interact with skills the characters possess and also allow real-time problem solving and experimentation (so long as it isn't so powerful/horrible that you murder them all immediately if they guess wrong the first time).

[Quertus]

So the problem around metagaming (when it comes to creature stats) comes down to a simple thing: It's harder to fight creatures if you don't know what they do.

In some cases the difference is minor - an orc is an orc, knowing its exact AC doesn't impact that much. In some cases, the difference is major - at the extreme end you get creatures that are basically invulnerable unless you know their weakness, at which point they become trivial.

So as a GM you have two options, really: You balance the encounters assuming the players do know the stats, or you balance them knowing that the players don't know the stats.

I prefer balancing the game presuming they know the stats. I'll pretty much die on this hill, for a few reasons:

1. Some players will know the stats from having seen the creature before. Presuming they know the stats makes this a non-issue. If you presume they don't know, then you either let the encounter be trivialized or you play the weird game of "do enough dumb things to get permission to do smart things", which isn't really that much fun for most people.

2. If you presume that the players do know the stats, then encounter design becomes more about how to deal with it, which starts to get into interesting tactics, timing, etc., rather than "guess the weakness". I personally prefer this style of game.

3. If players don't know the stats, it's pretty easy to give them sufficient descriptions of the stats - plus knowledge checks, etc. are a thing.

Not playing the "hidden information" game with monster stats just solves so many problems.

As much as I agree with you, and as much as I think that this is absolutely the correct answer for the OP, I still have to point out that it’s a false dichotomy, in that you can also, for example, not plan either way / not care either way. Which (other than trying to discourage new players from learning and metagaming *everything* (so that they can experience Exploration of the Unknown, to form an educated opinion on their preferences of Fun)) is pretty much the way I play the game. With things that should definitely feel familiar to the characters being pulled from common media, things that definitely should feel unknown being pulled from my ***, and the huge bulk of everything else getting a big shrug as they’re pulled straight from the bestiary.

And then, because I’m a mad scientist (praise Tzeentch), I’ll meddle with Far too much, and make gelatinous werewolves and two-headed vampires with rolled stats and rolled HP, or a Necron ship with a catapult tied to it, because Orcs overheard someone talking about “catapulting” a ship into the warp without its crew, believed it, and therefore did it. Or whatever other bit of crazy strikes my fancy at the time while being true to the Simulation.

[Jay R]

I warn my players in advance that they cannot completely trust the Monster Manual. Here is the relevant paragraph from my Introduction to the game:

DO NOT assume that you know everything about fantasy creatures. I will re-write some monsters and races, introduce some not in D&D, and eliminate some. What’s in the Monster Manual is what most people believe about these monsters, and most of it is true. The purpose is to make the world strange and mysterious. It will allow (require) PCs to learn, by trial and error, what works. Most of these changes I will not tell you in advance. Here are a couple, just to give you some idea what I mean.

1. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefit of the PCs.
2. Of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, and orcs, at least one does not exist, at least one is slightly different from the books, and at least one is wildly different.
3. No sentient race has only one alignment; free will is not a human-only trait. The alignment given in the books will be the most common for that race near where you are, but the presence of Neutral Evil goblins near your village does not mean that there aren’t perfectly Lawful goblin farm communities far to the south, or an advanced city of Good goblins on another continent. Most specifically, babies aren’t Evil, regardless of race.
4. The name of an Undead will not automatically tell you what will or won’t hurt it. I won’t change most Undead; knowledge has value. But I reserve the right to include a few surprises.
5. The first time you see a member of a humanoid race, I will describe it as a “vaguely man-shaped creature.” This could be a kobold, an elf, or an Umber Hulk unless you make a Knowledge roll or otherwise learn what they are.

This description is intentionally written to make them believe that things are changed more than they are. Most monsters aren’t changed at all. Dragons aren’t color-coded; elves don’t exist (yet); goblins are very different (semi-bestial creatures who fight with abandon and poor tactics, and cannot work metal). And I won't use ordinary skeleton rules when I bring in my triceratops skeleton mini. Very few other changes have been made.

But the fact that they had this description, and that the first non-humans they fought were different from the description (goblins raiding the village smithy looking for metal weapons) keeps them from believing in the books too much.

I don't expect these players to do that anyway. They are enjoying the game as it is. But this passage in my introduction would give me free rein to change the monsters’ abilities if they started reading the books during combat.

[kyoryu]

As much as I agree with you, and as much as I think that this is absolutely the correct answer for the OP, I still have to point out that it’s a false dichotomy, in that you can also, for example, not plan either way / not care either way. Which (other than trying to discourage new players from learning and metagaming *everything* (so that they can experience Exploration of the Unknown, to form an educated opinion on their preferences of Fun)) is pretty much the way I play the game. With things that should definitely feel familiar to the characters being pulled from common media, things that definitely should feel unknown being pulled from my ***, and the huge bulk of everything else getting a big shrug as they’re pulled straight from the bestiary.

I think if you are running a more "naturalistic" game where you're not tailoring encounters, you're probably already fairly well on the "assume they know" side of things, because generally those types of games tend to have more monster re-use anyway.

Even if you want to have players have some level of discovery, I still think it's better to presume that they either will have or quickly get the knowledge. Figuring out how to use your tools to deal with the specialness of the critter is generally more interesting than discovering the specialness. And if it's still a fun encounter if you know the gimmick (which is really kinda the core idea here, if you think about it), then it'll still be a fun encounter if they have to figure it out. It's a win/win.

[deadman1204]

I would call the player out on that, then immediately change the stats of the monster. However not simply make them different but bothersome. Like an unexpected resist (ice monster that is immune to fire for example), or if the party is mostly melee, give it extra reach and free disengage. Teach them that cheating has consequences.

The game loses alot of flavor when players know all the monsters.

[gbaji]

I would call the player out on that, then immediately change the stats of the monster. However not simply make them different but bothersome. Like an unexpected resist (ice monster that is immune to fire for example), or if the party is mostly melee, give it extra reach and free disengage. Teach them that cheating has consequences.

The game loses alot of flavor when players know all the monsters.

Eh. I don't know if changing the monster stats/abilities after such an event is a good choice as a GM though. It's going to feel punitive (which it is), and it may lead to the players not trusting the GM over time as a result (ie: If I do something as a player that the GM doesn't like, he'll punish my character for it). Responding to metagaming with more metagaming (which is what you'd be effectively doing) isn't going to be received well. And what is this teaching the players with regard to regular player knowledge? You really don't want a whole table actively disguising their decisions and reasons for those decisions out of fear that if they "get caught" they'll be punished in some way. Some players might take this as a metagame challenge to try to learn and memorize as much of the MM as possible, and then pretend not to know things "just enough" to "get away with it". As a GM you want to avoid making the game about "the players vs the GM" to as great a degree as possible.

I'd just let them know that's not cool to do, and that they are to rely on their character knowledge with regard to creature stats/abilities, but let it slide and move on. Hopefully, assuming I'm sitting at the same table, I spotted the reach for and flipping through the book and stopped them before they got too far anyway. If not, it's still a better approach because you're presenting "rules at my table" to be followed. There's no "me vs your characters". It's "these rules exist to ensure fair play for everyone". Which I think most players will respect. Once the players learn to not just respect you, but to trust you as a GM to be fair and honest with them, you'll find that you just don't have these problems. They'll learn that you will provide them with the information they need for the encounter based on actual character knowledge and abilities *and* with an eye towards a good, fun, well balanced game. They'll learn that you aren't just there to trick them into making mistakes (yes, I've seen GMs who think this is a load of laughs, which is just sad). And ultimately, your game will run smoothly and the players will have a great time.

[Talakeal]

For the record, my OP was not about a combat encounter.

[Quertus]

For the record, my OP was not about a combat encounter.

If it was something out of the Monster Manual, and therefore clearly a monster and worth XP, and it wasn’t a combat encounter, then your murderhobos are clearly defective. You should get them looked at.

And if it wasn’t a Combat encounter, all the more reason to give them the time to read all they want, rather than being a killjoy to what they find fun.

[Talakeal]

If it was something out of the Monster Manual, and therefore clearly a monster and worth XP, and it wasn’t a combat encounter, then your murderhobos are clearly defective. You should get them looked at.

And if it wasn’t a Combat encounter, all the more reason to give them the time to read all they want, rather than being a killjoy to what they find fun.

Forgive me for saying essentially the same thing in two threads at the same time, but couldn't you use this logic to denounce any sort of limitation on player behavior?

Like right now one of my players is blatantly cheating, and all the other players are aware of it and roll their eyes at it. Is it ruining their fun for me to say something about it? How many players have to be in on the cheating before I have the right to say something? If it is unanimous, am I still ruining their fun if I stop trying to make mechanically balanced or challenging scenarios because they are pointless in the face of cheating?

To me, the scenario in the OP is essentially posting spoilers on the internet, it is ruining the surprise for the rest of the group, and makes me wonder why I put all the effort into crafting the mystery in the first place.

[NichG]

Again though, if you want the properties of a monster to be mysterious, the book of monsters that experienced gamers will have seen in a dozen forms over decades isn't generally going to be a good source for that. Make something up that is completely new and not printed anywhere, and its not even possible to 'cheat' this way.

[Talakeal]

Again though, if you want the properties of a monster to be mysterious, the book of monsters that experienced gamers will have seen in a dozen forms over decades isn't generally going to be a good source for that. Make something up that is completely new and not printed anywhere, and its not even possible to 'cheat' this way.

Yeah. But my current group is 2/3rds new players, and it would be nice to teach them about the game world organically without the veterans blurting out spoilers.

[NichG]

Yeah. But my current group is 2/3rds new players, and it would be nice to teach them about the game world organically without the veterans blurting out spoilers.

Well again, if the game world isn't just about the stuff in the Monster Manual, you can absolutely do this. And you can use the Monster Manual when you want to create the experience of 'I don't know what this is, but other people seem to be familiar with it', which is also a certain kind of feel that can be interesting to evoke. It just seems easy enough to control on the DM side of things that it isn't really worth getting bent out of shape about it on the player side of things.

[Mechalich]

Yeah. But my current group is 2/3rds new players, and it would be nice to teach them about the game world organically without the veterans blurting out spoilers.

Hmm, so one thing, with regard to new players (or even experienced players encountering new obscure monsters) is that they are often not satisfied with verbal descriptions and want to see an image of the monster. This leads to an impulse to open the MM to reveal the artwork, which regrettably segues into staring at the entry. Personally, I always printed out images of the monsters to be used in a session so that the players would have access to pictures completely sans stats to avoid this sort of temptation.

[Leon]

Depends if the players are able to differentiate Player knowledge with Character knowledge. If you suspect that they cant or wont then you alter it to suit your needs.

I know for a fact that the Dragon we fought in the finale of the first 5e game i was in had something that was giving it resist fire because it didn't blink when several Fireballs were thrown at it but it went hell for leather after those who were using Lightning on it (after i mentioned from 3e that Whites were weak to fire and the DM cleared that one up and obs decided to further add to it with a effect)

Same campaign i almost caused a TPK because of assumed knowledge being different between editions, turns out that WotC thought it would be neat for Lycanthropes to be flat out immune to damage instead of just very resistant if you didn't have the ways around it and not many low level groups would be expected to have those means given costs and scarcity of items, necklace of fireballs saved us (and the virtue of the DM to have put a quality magic item in instead of the joke item that was normally meant to be where it was) As it was the TPK almost happened less from assumed knowledge and more from wandering off alone and finding something too big to handle and having chase my character back to all lycanthropes were and thus making them angry.

Current game has us up against a Werewolf and while we are of a nature that it wont be a problem from a gear perspective even before we found out its weaknesses in character one player was haranguing the local church for silver weapons, im fully expecting this werewolf to be nonstandard even without that bit of metagaming

[Vahnavoi]

I agree that it is stupid and pointless to expect players to pretend they don't know how a monster works, risking the lives of their characters until some arbitrary point when they think they've RP'd their ignorance long enough and just happen to "discover" it's weakness.

Several different posters have tripped on this, so it's worth saying something about:

It is neither stupid nor pointless. Being able to pretend you don't know something is very basics of acting, and hence also roleplaying. Being able to understand that someone is pretending to be ignorant is also key and basic. People need to be able to do these things if they ever want to portray characters that aren't 1:1 with themselves.

If there are new players at a table, this is something you want to explain to them: that sometimes, your role is of someone who knows less than you do, which entails sometimes the correct action to take in the game is something you would not do normally. Even if it means taking greater risks or outright failing a game objective (such as keeping a character alive). The role where you play to upper limit of your own knowledge is specific and not fit for every kind of game.

Not everyone can do this. For example, small children with weak theory of mind can't make a distinction between what they know and what others know. For a similar reason some people struggle with the notion that, say, a movie character might not know everything the audience does, or that an actor might be different from a character they're portraying. If you're playing with such people, then expecting them to pretend is unrealistic. With everyone else, though? You should explain it, expect it AND enforce it so that the players get the hint.

[GloatingSwine]

Several different posters have tripped on this, so it's worth saying something about:

It is neither stupid nor pointless. Being able to pretend you don't know something is very basics of acting, and hence also roleplaying. Being able to understand that someone is pretending to be ignorant is also key and basic. People need to be able to do these things if they ever want to portray characters that aren't 1:1 with themselves.


Yeah, but this also means that they have to metagame even harder.

Because they have to figure out N plausible but wrong actions (where N is "a number that will satisfy the DM so they don't complain about metagaming") before they do the right action. So they still have to use their player knowledge, they just have to use it in a way that ensures they avoid certain actions because those actions are "correct".

Which is much more annoying to actually play.

And can be avoided by simply not treating published monsters as puzzle monsters. If it's a puzzle monster make it up for the purposes of the puzzle (as long as your group is primed to accept that sort of encounter which history suggests Takaleal's is not).

[Vahnavoi]

Yeah, but this also means that they have to metagame even harder.

And? This isn't the problem. It's the solution.


Because they have to figure out N plausible but wrong actions (where N is "a number that will satisfy the DM so they don't complain about metagaming") before they do the right action. So they still have to use their player knowledge, they just have to use it in a way that ensures they avoid certain actions because those actions are "correct".

You missed the point, hard.

This is a basic theory-of-mind test. (https://images.app.goo.gl/8vuecB21rL9zYFc37) It is homologous to playing Sally in a roleplaying game. Looking for the ball in the basket first is the right action. It shows you can keep track of and empathize with someone different from yourself, allowing you to solve puzzles like this.

Figuring out what actions Sally would plausibly take and avoiding actions that are implausible isn't something extraneous to roleplaying, it IS roleplaying. I already explained this in my first post to the thread, but it clearly bears repeating.


Which is much more annoying to actually play.

It's only more annoying to play in the same sense that anything that requires more thought and skill from you is. As with many other challenges, it's possible to scale it (https://images.app.goo.gl/3ffBSqFVvY6L3X8V8) based on capacity of the players to reach a desired level of engagement.


And can be avoided by simply not treating published monsters as puzzle monsters. If it's a puzzle monster make it up for the purposes of the puzzle (as long as your group is primed to accept that sort of encounter which history suggests Takaleal's is not).

You make two errors here. The first is presuming that having players use more of their brains to play their characters is something to be avoided. The second is presuming the puzzle is defeating the monster, rather than figuring out what your character would do, how and why.

The second is the really fatal one, and the most pervasive throughout this entire thread.

[Thrudd]

Several different posters have tripped on this, so it's worth saying something about:

It is neither stupid nor pointless. Being able to pretend you don't know something is very basics of acting, and hence also roleplaying. Being able to understand that someone is pretending to be ignorant is also key and basic. People need to be able to do these things if they ever want to portray characters that aren't 1:1 with themselves.

If there are new players at a table, this is something you want to explain to them: that sometimes, your role is of someone who knows less than you do, which entails sometimes the correct action to take in the game is something you would not do normally. Even if it means taking greater risks or outright failing a game objective (such as keeping a character alive). The role where you play to upper limit of your own knowledge is specific and not fit for every kind of game.

Not everyone can do this. For example, small children with weak theory of mind can't make a distinction between what they know and what others know. For a similar reason some people struggle with the notion that, say, a movie character might not know everything the audience does, or that an actor might be different from a character they're portraying. If you're playing with such people, then expecting them to pretend is unrealistic. With everyone else, though? You should explain it, expect it AND enforce it so that the players get the hint.

It depends on the game. If there is an element of player challenge to the game and character death is always on the table, as there usually is in D&D, I feel it's neither fair nor appropriate to ask players to knowingly act in ways that are likely to get their character killed, even in the name of acting. Perhaps the only exception is when you have veteran players with some brand new players - in this case, it might be appropriate for the GM to ask the veterans to take a back seat and give the new players the opportunity to discover things the same way they did when they were new- of course, in this case, the GM is probably also probably toning down the challenge to the level of experience, and the experienced player will understand that.

Actually discovering new things and experimenting with the fictional world and creatures is something that I like to have in my games - not that I discourage acting, but I also like to actually surprise and challenge players and give them the chance to actually discover things and solve problems through play. It is very unsatisfying if the entire game is just me or the players acting like they are discovering a world which they actually already know like the back of their hands. There's no reason that players must always play characters who begin ignorant of the world they live in- when everyone is an experienced player, I think it's reasonable to skip the stage where they act like they've never heard of the classic monsters (if you're using the classic monsters).

Yes, you should emphasize players separating their player and character knowledge as much as possible, and sometimes you have those acting scenes, where you communicate that the character's aren't really in danger so that the players can act through the process of discovering something they already know about their deadly enemies (or just do it through research/knowledge skills outside of combat). But if this is happening too often, I question the GM's creativity. Instead of asking players to act through rediscovering the same stuff they've been playing with for years, maybe create some new stuff.

[GloatingSwine]

It's only more annoying to play in the same sense that anything that requires more thought and skill from you is. As with many other challenges, it's possible to scale it (https://images.app.goo.gl/3ffBSqFVvY6L3X8V8) based on capacity of the players to reach a desired level of engagement.


Except it doesn't require "more thought and skill" because it's measuring up to an arbitrary and unknowable standard (the point at which your DM will no longer throw a strop).

This is not a player genuinely attempting to inhabit the life of their character and choose what they would do, this is a player attempting to inhabit their DM's mind and trying to guess how many hoops they're supposed to jump through.

It's a persistent reminder that you are not in the game and acting on the gameworld.

[Easy e]

If knowing the "stats" of a foe ruins a combat, I am questioning why the combat exists in the first place?

That sounds like a combat with little or no stakes to it. Just, fight to fight.

[Thrudd]

If knowing the "stats" of a foe ruins a combat, I am questioning why the combat exists in the first place?

That sounds like a combat with little or no stakes to it. Just, fight to fight.

It doesn't ruin combat, it just ruins some moments where the players are surprised by something and have to figure something out with their brains. They don't always need to not know the stats- they will know the stats after a little while, once they've figured them out. Combat exists for all sorts of reasons, but one of the big ones is to challenge the players. Absent anything else, stakes for combat are at the very least "don't die".
You can have lots of fights against perfectly known enemies, but sometimes you want something new that is mysterious and dangerous and that requires some figuring out. Recommend not using things from books that your players have read, for those situations. This isn't a claim that "every fight needs to be a mystery with hidden stats"- but that sometimes you want some mystery, and players pouring over GM resources to try to figure out what you're doing instead of trying to figure it out by role playing and interacting with the fictional world is sort of antithetical to the spirit of the game.

[kyoryu]

Except it doesn't require "more thought and skill" because it's measuring up to an arbitrary and unknowable standard (the point at which your DM will no longer throw a strop).

This is not a player genuinely attempting to inhabit the life of their character and choose what they would do, this is a player attempting to inhabit their DM's mind and trying to guess how many hoops they're supposed to jump through.

It's a persistent reminder that you are not in the game and acting on the gameworld.

To add on to what you're saying (IOW, not arguing with you):

Literally everybody in this thread understands the basic theory-of-mind of "monster has a vulnerability. I know what it is but my PC doesn't. My PC would not use the vulnerability initially." That's the entire premise.

However, at that point "what the PC would do" would change to "figure out the weakness." We can over-simplify this as "there are N possible vulnerabilities the PC could try." The question at that point becomes "how many do they try before we let them try the right one?" And even this is not really accurate because, hey, we do know the correct solution, so we also have to answer the question "would they ever learn it?"

So, they're going to try stuff, right? Might they get lucky and try the right thing the first time? Maybe, but unlikely. If there are 10 possibilities we can think of, how many do they need to go through?

Understanding that they don't know the correct strategy up front is trivial. (And referring to the Sally-Anne test is kind of implying you think the other people are autistic, so I'd tread carefully there). Modeling the learning process to figure out when they "should" or "would" learn the correct strategy is much, much harder. See also the difficulty of creating riddles/puzzles for other people (ultimately if you want a good one you have to actually test it with real people).


It doesn't ruin combat

It can, in extreme cases. If you have nasty monster that is invulnerable to everything, but just dies if you touch it with the right object, knowing that does invalidate combat (presuming the object is readily available). That's a super extreme example, of course.

The argument is basically "don't do that". Make encounters that are still fun when you know the catch, and then you can also be more free with the info.

[Anymage]

It is neither stupid nor pointless. Being able to pretend you don't know something is very basics of acting, and hence also roleplaying. Being able to understand that someone is pretending to be ignorant is also key and basic. People need to be able to do these things if they ever want to portray characters that aren't 1:1 with themselves.

It still takes mental effort to sequester what you know from what you don't. D&D combat is already asking you to keep track of a lot, so asking you to also devote brainpower to remembering what your character might or might not know on a round-by-round basis is asking a lot. With famous monsters, it's okay to assume a certain level of assumed knowledge. The DM can use tweaking or refluffing if he absolutely wants trick monsters. Although players should have some way of getting a heads up beyond being gotcha'd mid-combat, since presumably other people have encountered these monsters before and would be able to share their information.


If knowing the "stats" of a foe ruins a combat, I am questioning why the combat exists in the first place?

That sounds like a combat with little or no stakes to it. Just, fight to fight.

Having a rough idea what's coming is okay. The characters live in the world, they can generally get a fair idea of threat assessment and know how much more they can take. Plus, given how key to resource management is to D&D, it's okay if the players err on the knowledgeable side of how resource-intensive future encounters might be.

Pulling out the book when you meet a monster will do certain things to a table's pacing and tone. Pacing because flipping through the book and reading the exact stats takes time. Tone, because assuming perfect knowledge makes it easy to see monsters as basically video game mobs. And one person doing so can set precedent for the whole table. (Cheating is similar. If Alice always coincidentally rolls natural 20s on her key rolls she isn't just cheating herself out of risk and excitement. You'll also have Bob asking himself why his character shouldn't be similarly lucky, and it can quickly become a tablewide norm.) It's a good idea to try to head these sorts of things off before they become entrenched in how the whole group plays.

[Quertus]

Yeah. But my current group is 2/3rds new players, and it would be nice to teach them about the game world organically without the veterans blurting out spoilers.

This i can agree with. Here’s a thought: why don’t you express exactly this sentiment to the 1/3 of the group that knows the game, and see if you can get buy-in?

And “no, 3/3 of us don’t enjoy that” is a valid response, and one that you should accept. Even if it makes you as sad as it would me.


Forgive me for saying essentially the same thing in two threads at the same time, but couldn't you use this logic to denounce any sort of limitation on player behavior?

Like right now one of my players is blatantly cheating, and all the other players are aware of it and roll their eyes at it. Is it ruining their fun for me to say something about it? How many players have to be in on the cheating before I have the right to say something? If it is unanimous, am I still ruining their fun if I stop trying to make mechanically balanced or challenging scenarios because they are pointless in the face of cheating?

To me, the scenario in the OP is essentially posting spoilers on the internet, it is ruining the surprise for the rest of the group, and makes me wonder why I put all the effort into crafting the mystery in the first place.

If all of your players are cheating, and having fun? Let them have their fun! If playing the game with spoilers is fun for your group? Let them have their fun!

I may not personally like it, but until I’m hired by the Fun Police, or ascend to “god of Fun and Games”, that’s not my job to destroy the fun of others that isn’t hurting anyone or their Fun. And it shouldn’t be yours, either.

Again, if it is hurting others’ fun, then anyone who perceives that (including and especially the one whose fun is being hurt) has the right and questionably the responsibility to broach the topic. “Can you let the new players experience the joy of Exploration of the Unknown, let them see if they enjoy encountering monsters about which their characters know nothing, let them learn about D&D trolls the way we did millions of years ago before the Internet was a thing?” That’s fine.

And show your support for their fun by writing down all the page numbers for all the rest of the monsters. Or printing out those stat cards I mentioned long ago.

[kyoryu]

Having a rough idea what's coming is okay. The characters live in the world, they can generally get a fair idea of threat assessment and know how much more they can take. Plus, given how key to resource management is to D&D, it's okay if the players err on the knowledgeable side of how resource-intensive future encounters might be.

Even if not known in advance, the argument is really "dealing with the specialness should be more interesting than finding it out." Really, that's it.

A monster that is automatically defeated if you hit it with a melee attack, a missile attack, and a spell is boring once you know the trick. "Okay, melee, then arrow, then spell and it goes away." Yawn.

A monster that will heal wounds in n turns unless it gets hit with fire is interesting. Now you have to have someone do fire damage to it every now and then to make sure the rest of the damage sticks - how often do you do that? What if the attack misses?

Same with a group of monsters that explode when died. Sure, the first one is a surprise, but after that how much do you risk being in melee? Can you lure them next to each other so they hit each other on death? There are a ton of choices to make now that you know what you're dealing with.

These are good, or at least decent, "trick" monsters that aren't invalidated because you know the trick. They change what you have to deal with in combat.


Pulling out the book when you meet a monster will do certain things to a table's pacing and tone. Pacing because flipping through the book and reading the exact stats takes time. Tone, because assuming perfect knowledge makes it easy to see monsters as basically video game mobs.

If the knowledge doesn't invalidate them, then you can hand out statblocks trivially (hide it behind a knowledge check if you want). That solves the time issue.

Them being "video game mobs" is dependent on how you run them. Are you running them as intelligent (when appropriate) creatures that exist in a world and have motivations? If so, then their stats will matter less in terms of making them feel "non-video game".

[GloatingSwine]

It can, in extreme cases. If you have nasty monster that is invulnerable to everything, but just dies if you touch it with the right object, knowing that does invalidate combat (presuming the object is readily available). That's a super extreme example, of course.

The argument is basically "don't do that". Make encounters that are still fun when you know the catch, and then you can also be more free with the info.

Or make it very clear upfront then introduce the monster before you introduce the object so you have a few rounds of a different type of combat gameplay (avoid and delay) before you get the delete button for it. (See: Regenerator in Dead Space, Pursuer in Resident Evil 4)

[Jay R]

It seems like people are discussing two different issues without recognizing it. Let me try to pull them apart.

A. How much information should the characters have about the monsters?


On this subject, I have no opinion. It will be different at different tables, and in different games. Lots of answers are perfectly good, as long as the DM and the players are in sync.

But also, this issue is entirely irrelevant to the question we were asked.

B. What should you do when the players decide to look something up in the book that their characters aren't supposed to know yet?


This is the actual question we were asked to comment on. I have firm ideas on this one.

1. The DM should remind them clearly and without any accusations. "Put that book down and make a relevant Knowledge check."

If the DM doesn't address the issue at that moment, then he has tacitly agreed that they can check the books during the game. [A compromise is to let it happen once, and then discuss it and set clear boundaries outside the gaming session.] In this case, Talakeal allowed it to happen. It is therefore accepted practice in this game until he specifically says that it isn't.

2. If the DM tells them that that behavior isn't acceptable in the game, and they do it anyway, then there is no agreement between the DM and the players about how to play. Either continue to let the players ignore the DM's rules, or quit DMing.

Please note that I have not expressed an opinion about what level of metagame information is "correct", or about who is in the "wrong". I don't care, and the right answer in one game will not be the right answer in another.

I am merely discussing the case in which the DM and players are not in agreement on the level of metagaming accepted. And the straightforward answer is you must either talk until you agree to accept the same approach to the game, or the DM and players will never have the same approach to the game.


[On a somewhat separate issue: I strongly recommend only playing with good friends you've known a long time and who generally share your approach to things. I have good friends whose company I really enjoy, but with whom I don't play rpgs. I've known everybody in my game at least three years before we started, and some of them over thirty years. This won't happen with these folks. And even if it did, when I said, "Put that book down and make a relevant Knowledge check," I expect the player would say, "Oh, of course. Right."

And we'd all ignore it, keep playing, and pretty much forget the incident five minutes later.]

[Quertus]

B. What should you do when the players decide to look something up in the book that their characters aren't supposed to know yet?


This is the actual question we were asked to comment on. I have firm ideas on this one.

1. The DM should remind them clearly and without any accusations. "Put that book down and make a relevant Knowledge check."

2. If the DM tells them that that behavior isn't acceptable in the game, and they do it anyway, then there is no agreement between the DM and the players about how to play. Either continue to let the players ignore the DM's rules, or quit DMing.

I am merely discussing the case in which the DM and players are not in agreement on the level of metagaming accepted. And the straightforward answer is you must either talk until you agree to accept the same approach to the game, or the DM and players will never have the same approach to the game.


[On a somewhat separate issue: I strongly recommend only playing with good friends you've known a long time and who generally share your approach to things. I have good friends whose company I really enjoy, but with whom I don't play rpgs. I've known everybody in my game at least three years before we started, and some of them over thirty years. This won't happen with these folks. And even if it did, when I said, "Put that book down and make a relevant Knowledge check," I expect the player would say, "Oh, of course. Right."

And we'd all ignore it, keep playing, and pretty much forget the incident five minutes later.]

Here’s the thing:



Ok, so now that I have some responses:

What I did was say to the players "Guys, please cut the meta-gaming," in as mild and neutral a voice as I could.

They put the book away and didn't bring it up again, but they gave me some pretty dirty looks as they did so.

The GM is clearly the odd man out here. So the GM needs to get with the program, and stop hurting everyone else’s fun.

When the players say, “that’s not what we find fun”, I expect the GM to say, “Oh, of course. Right.”, ignore it, keep playing, and pretty much forget the incident five minutes later.

Which, don’t get me wrong, I personally prefer Exploration and hidden information. But no one - not me, not the GM - has any right to be an intentional detriment to what the players know that they enjoy.

[Easy e]

Having a rough idea what's coming is okay. The characters live in the world, they can generally get a fair idea of threat assessment and know how much more they can take. Plus, given how key to resource management is to D&D, it's okay if the players err on the knowledgeable side of how resource-intensive future encounters might be.

Pulling out the book when you meet a monster will do certain things to a table's pacing and tone. Pacing because flipping through the book and reading the exact stats takes time. Tone, because assuming perfect knowledge makes it easy to see monsters as basically video game mobs. And one person doing so can set precedent for the whole table. (Cheating is similar. If Alice always coincidentally rolls natural 20s on her key rolls she isn't just cheating herself out of risk and excitement. You'll also have Bob asking himself why his character shouldn't be similarly lucky, and it can quickly become a tablewide norm.) It's a good idea to try to head these sorts of things off before they become entrenched in how the whole group plays.

No idea why this is the response to me questioning the purpose of a combat, if said combat is ruined by the players knowing the stats of a foe.

Like I mentioned before, I would not personally care; and my method of having them put down the book and keep playing was to constantly shift the spotlight to the people trying to look in the Monster Manual and force them to play instead of read a book.

So, my "solution" to the issue is two fold:

1. Put in combats that are worth more than the "I don't know how to kill this efficiently" factor
2. Keep the pace of the game fast by shifting the spotlight around so folks focus on playing the game

[Thrudd]

In regards to the actual event in question: I think a responsible thing to do for the player at issue, who recognized a description and was maybe excited to show the new players the monster in the book, would be to ask the DM to do that. "hey, can you show them the picture of the thing in the monster manual, it's really cool!" - If I were DM, I'd have no problem with that - I would be happy to show a picture of what I'm describing. I don't want players looking up monsters themselves, while the game is going on.

In fact, when I'm a player, I try to avoid looking in monster manuals at all, even in between sessions (unless I'm planning my own campaign). I remember a lot of things from years of playing, but in no way have memorized every creature and module I've ever seen. I want to keep out of DM resources when I'm not the DM, so as to spoil as little as possible for myself.

[Vahnavoi]

Except it doesn't require "more thought and skill" because it's measuring up to an arbitrary and unknowable standard (the point at which your DM will no longer throw a strop).

You're simply wrong on this one - by this standard, olympic figure skating doesn't require more thought and skill at entry level than at high level, since it's a referee sport.

What "arbitrary" actually means in this context is that the arbiter can set the standard where ever they think it will serve the game best. The same thing can be used to scale the challenge to what best suits the players, and this is a basic building scheme for games. Unknowability is neither here nor there; the arbiter can just make their standard known, something I've already advocated for.


This is not a player genuinely attempting to inhabit the life of their character and choose what they would do, this is a player attempting to inhabit their DM's mind and trying to guess how many hoops they're supposed to jump through.

It's a persistent reminder that you are not in the game and acting on the gameworld.

Go read the theory of flow related to the diagram I showed. The entire theory of immersion you're harping on is already included in it.

You are only espousing the belief that a game master cannot set their standard so that figuring out what is plausible in their mind aligns with the player's attempt to empathize with a hypothetical character. I have no reason to agree; you might as well argue a figure skater and a referee cannot be of the same mind about what consists a good performance.

Furthermore, verisimilitude and immersion among a group of people, such as players in a game, is best achieved when their ideas for what is plausible align; how is this state supposed to be reached without the group members spending active thought and effort on it?

---


It still takes mental effort to sequester what you know from what you don't. D&D combat is already asking you to keep track of a lot, so asking you to also devote brainpower to remembering what your character might or might not know on a round-by-round basis is asking a lot.

Nobody is denying that it takes mental effort; "takes mental effort" is just not a sufficient reason to not do it. If you want to reduce cognitive load of players you can also, you know, reduce the number of stuff they need to keep track of in combat. I repeat: the challenge of doing this isn't set. It's scaleable. Even within D&D.

---



Literally everybody in this thread understands the basic theory-of-mind of "monster has a vulnerability. I know what it is but my PC doesn't. My PC would not use the vulnerability initially." That's the entire premise.

I don't have to assume that everybody in the thread understands it, because people provenly exist who do not. Furthermore, I don't have to assume people who DO understand it will always follow through in actual games. As noted, the process requires thought and skill; more thought and skill as the number of layers and things to remember grows. Even a well-intentioned player may simply forget (or otherwise do a mistake) in the heat of a moment, which is why a game might want a referee figure (such as a game master) or other players to remind them.

So the correct choice is to explain, expect and enforce it - just like any other game rule.


However, at that point "what the PC would do" would change to "figure out the weakness." We can over-simplify this as "there are N possible vulnerabilities the PC could try." The question at that point becomes "how many do they try before we let them try the right one?" And even this is not really accurate because, hey, we do know the correct solution, so we also have to answer the question "would they ever learn it?"

So, they're going to try stuff, right? Might they get lucky and try the right thing the first time? Maybe, but unlikely. If there are 10 possibilities we can think of, how many do they need to go through?

Understanding that they don't know the correct strategy up front is trivial. Modeling the learning process to figure out when they "should" or "would" learn the correct strategy is much, much harder.

A game master, in the role of a game designer, can straight-forwardly influence both the answers to these questions and how hard it is to figure them out - and the players can too, when they're involved in character design. Similarly, the degree of accuracy is arbitrary and the designers can simply choose the degree of accuracy that's within their limits to implement.

None of these type of questions need to be rocket science and they can just be baked into the basics of playing a roleplaying game. You seem to imply that the non-triviality of some of them means players shouldn't have to deal with them. That is wrong - it simply means it's possible to build non-trivial games around them.


See also the difficulty of creating riddles/puzzles for other people (ultimately if you want a good one you have to actually test it with real people).

And? What about it? Any game master wanting to make their own material has to do it, and having interest in doing it is one reason why one would even become a game master.

Remember the root target of my criticism: that it's "stupid and pointless" to expect a thing out of player. Well: would it be it stupid and pointless to expect people who show up to play a puzzle game to at least try to solve the puzzle? Would it be stupid and pointless to expect that they at least generally enjoy solving puzzles of the sort being offered?

Because if it's not stupid and pointless, neither can expecting the players to engage with the sort of questions and problems you outlined be.


And referring to the Sally-Anne test is kind of implying you think the other people are autistic, so I'd tread carefully there.

I'm taking this out of parentheses because it is all kinds of silly.

The Sally-Anne test is basic theory-of-mind test; there are a wide variety of reasons why a person might struggle with it. That autism happens to be among those reasons is an observation by you, not an implication by me. The actual point I'm discussing is that a working theory of mind is a requirement for acting and for roleplaying. Your observation doesn't create any need for me to "tread carefully".

[Alcore]

What I would do at a table?

Take the book from him. If he can find the monster in just a minute he already knows about it. He can tell the other characters about it without the specific details. This impromptu study session is delaying the game and is not the time for it. It is immursion breaking and a time waster. I don't need a book to tell what doesn't work; having a character shout out "use ice!" is better.


That said I Play By Post so every player has a computer screen in front of them. Stopping them from metagaming is like trying to stop the weather.

[icefractal]

If all of your players are cheating, and having fun? Let them have their fun! If playing the game with spoilers is fun for your group? Let them have their fun!

I may not personally like it, but until I’m hired by the Fun Police, or ascend to “god of Fun and Games”, that’s not my job to destroy the fun of others that isn’t hurting anyone or their Fun. And it shouldn’t be yours, either.With the caveat that the GM is also a player, and has no obligation to keep running the game if the other players' idea of fun ruins their fun, then sure.

I mean personally, I probably wouldn't run a game if the players were all cheating. Well, I might be willing to run a few sessions that way, but it'd be in a lighter system than 3.x, because there's no point to detailed stats if they don't matter. And I think it would probably dissolve into chaos pretty quickly (as Fiasco does when we play it), which is not inherently bad but I get bored with after a couple sessions.

[Psyren]

I would take the book (stopping the session to hand it around is a no-no) but I definitely still allow checks to understand what the monster can do. I wouldn't change the monster's stats though, that would be more of a "going forward" kind of deal.

[Tanarii]

Player-character separation is a myth. You can't know something and actually have your character act as if you did not know it. Attempting to do so when you know is no guarantee that it will match what would happen if you didn't know, it may even be the exact opposite if it's a binary choice.

Just set a rule of no books or devices at the table, and let the players make decisions for their characters, filtered through their character's motivations.

Pacing matters too. Players shouldn't have table time to research something in a book or device anyway unless there is time for their characters to do so. Or talk strategy or tactics.

[Talakeal]

For the record, I agree that fights where monsters have one critical weakness and are otherwise ni-indestructable are stupid and try and strongly avoid them.


Here’s the thing:




The GM is clearly the odd man out here. So the GM needs to get with the program, and stop hurting everyone else’s fun.

When the players say, “that’s not what we find fun”, I expect the GM to say, “Oh, of course. Right.”, ignore it, keep playing, and pretty much forget the incident five minutes later.

Which, don’t get me wrong, I personally prefer Exploration and hidden information. But no one - not me, not the GM - has any right to be an intentional detriment to what the players know that they enjoy.

Oh. I see where the misunderstanding is.

The book didn't make it all the way around the table when I said this. He had only shown it to one player and was preparing to show it to a second when I said this, and only the first two gave me dirty looks. I don't think the majority of the table even knew what was going on at the time.

[GloatingSwine]

I don't have to assume that everybody in the thread understands it, because people provenly exist who do not. ".

People understand it, don't be condescending.

They just disagree with you about the consequences of it at the gaming table.

[Quertus]

Oh. I see where the misunderstanding is.

The book didn't make it all the way around the table when I said this. He had only shown it to one player and was preparing to show it to a second when I said this, and only the first two gave me dirty looks. I don't think the majority of the table even knew what was going on at the time.

So then we’re back to that stuff you hate: testing to make informed decisions rather than charging blindly forwards. Take action to give your players the opportunity to find out how they prefer playing, and, after they can give you an informed answer regarding their preferences, act accordingly.

[Jay R]

Here’s the thing:

The GM is clearly the odd man out here.

You don't know that, and the GM has since said most players weren't even involved.


So the GM needs to get with the program, and stop hurting everyone else’s fun.

People give "dirty looks" when stopped from doing something, even if they realize that the person stopping them was right. Their immediate emotional reaction is not inherently their final rational opinion. I give a dirty look when I hear a police siren and I realize that I am speeding. I give a dirty look when there's a long line at the movies. I give a dirty look when my workplace is out of my preferred coffee. That doesn't mean I think people have been an "intentional detriment" or that I think anyone is hurting my fun. It means the situation annoys me.


When the players say, “that’s not what we find fun”, I expect the GM to say, “Oh, of course. Right.”, ignore it, keep playing, and pretty much forget the incident five minutes later.

No player said that. There was an immediate emotional reaction, and then no complaint offered.


Which, don’t get me wrong, I personally prefer Exploration and hidden information. But no one - not me, not the GM - has any right to be an intentional detriment to what the players know that they enjoy.

"an intentional detriment to what the players know that they enjoy" is an unfair, unjustified accusation. GMs say, "No, you can't do that" all the time; that's part of the job.
"No, you can't leap over the fissure; it's 50 feet wide."
"No, you can't draw your sword. You left it on the table, remember?"
"No, you can't damage the ghost. Your weapon isn't magic."
"No, you can't convince the guard to betray his side. His captain is watching him right now."
"No, you can't look things up in the book. Your character doesn't have that information."

All of these are the GM's job, and there's no significant difference between them.

And on any issue of hidden information, the GM is the only person with an unbiased opinion about how fun in might be to learn it in play. By definition, the players don't have the necessary information to judge the situation.

The GM may know that this Crumple-Horned Snorkack is not a standard one, and the book will lead them astray.
The GM may know that this is the first Snorkack in this plane ever, and no information exists.
The GM may know that the PCs have no access to information on Snorkacks.
The GM may know that there is no reason not to look up this monster, but there's another encounter coming soon that would be spoiled by OOC information, and he needs to set the standard now.
The GM may have a huge revelation coming two rounds from now, and stopping for ten minutes to read will lose all the suspense and drama.
The GM may know that meta-gaming will hurt the grand ending coming in three weeks.
The GM may believe that what is likely to happen if they don't know will be more fun that what is likely to happen if they do know.

In short, there are lots of reasons why the GM might know more about whether the players will enjoy the game one way or another that the players might not know.

That's why the two most important factors for a game to work are:

1. The players and the GM must be trustworthy, and
2. The players and the GM must trust each other.

In this case, unless there is some big reason not to trust the GM (for which we have no evidence), the players should trust the GM when he asks them to put down the book. Make an immediate annoyed face, then focus again on the game, and forget it within five minutes.

As I said in my "Rules for DMs":


3. What the players want today is a quick, easy victory. But what they will want tomorrow is to have brilliantly and valiantly turned the tables to barely survive a deadly encounter where it looked like they were all about to die.

If I knew that the players were still upset over it after the game, and were complaining that the GM spoiled their fun, then we might be justified in claiming that the GM was an unintentional detriment to what the players know that they enjoy. But you still can't say it was intentional unless you know that his intention was to spoil the enjoyment, rather than, say, a simple preference for a game with no meta-gaming.

And we don't even know if it spoiled their fun without a statement from them after the encounter.

[Anymage]

So then weÂ’re back to that stuff you hate: testing to make informed decisions rather than charging blindly forwards. Take action to give your players the opportunity to find out how they prefer playing, and, after they can give you an informed answer regarding their preferences, act accordingly.

Some players prefer being "lucky" such that they never seem to roll below a 10, and always seem to get that natural 20 on important saves. They might say that calling them out reduces their fun, but their mathematical shift vs. a fair player's rolls means that other players need to start fudging too if they want to continue being effective. On player can very much set the tone for a table regardless of what other players might want.

Perfect information tactical runs aren't intrinsically bad. Neither is pseudo-isekai where the characters are clearly player avatars used to engage with canonical D&D lore. We have no reason to believe that these are true for all of Tal's group, so it's okay to call out one player trying to set that tone.

[Easy e]

Y

That's why the two most important factors for a game to work are:

1. The players and the GM must be trustworthy, and
2. The players and the GM must trust each other.

In this case, unless there is some big reason not to trust the GM (for which we have no evidence), the players should trust the GM when he asks them to put down the book. Make an immediate annoyed face, then focus again on the game, and forget it within five minutes.



Clearly, you are not familiar with the Talakeal horror stories of threads past. If you were, you would all ready know that the two items listed above is the root cause of this thread.

[Quertus]

And on any issue of hidden information, the GM is the only person with an unbiased opinion about how fun in might be to learn it in play. By definition, the players don't have the necessary information to judge the situation.

The GM may know that this Crumple-Horned Snorkack is not a standard one, and the book will lead them astray.
The GM may know that this is the first Snorkack in this plane ever, and no information exists.
The GM may know that the PCs have no access to information on Snorkacks.
The GM may know that there is no reason not to look up this monster, but there's another encounter coming soon that would be spoiled by OC information, and he needs to set the standard now.
The GM may have a huge revelation coming two rounds from now, and stopping for ten minutes to read will lose all the suspense and drama.
The GM may know that meta-gaming will hurt the grand ending coming in three weeks.
The GM may believe that what is likely to happen if they don't know will be more fun that what is likely to happen if they do know.

In short, there are lots of reasons why the GM might know more about whether the players will enjoy the game one way or another that the players might not know.


3. What the players want today is a quick, easy victory. But what they will want tomorrow is to have brilliantly and valiantly turned the tables to barely survive a deadly encounter where it looked like they were all about to die.

If I knew that the players were still upset over it after the game, and were complaining that the GM spoiled their fun, then we might be justified in claiming that the GM was an unintentional detriment to what the players know that they enjoy. But you still can't say it was intentional unless you know that his intention was to spoil the enjoyment, rather than, say, a simple preference for a game with no meta-gaming.

And we don't even know if it spoiled their fun without a statement from them after the encounter.

You’re right about a lot in your post, and I’ll preemptively say that I agree with a lot of what you said, but you’re wrong about something, which I’ll try and tease out, in the hopes that you can see the difference.

Imagine if you had said, “only the chef can know what foods you will enjoy”, or “only Quertus can know what gender identity you’ll enjoy”. You’d see that these are obviously wrong, right? And they’re wrong in different ways, but there’s a similar… direction to their wrongness. [this is the error checking code. If you hear something that doesn’t sound like it aligns with these, then I’ve failed to communicate my idea]

Well, I fully agree that the GM has inside information on the value of any particular element of hidden information. Well… sort of. Maybe not fully agree. Dagnabbit, why do I have to complicate everything? :smallannoyed:

Ok, let’s try again.

I fully agree that the GM has a different perspective. Sometimes, some of the players share that perspective (“oh, cool, we get to watch how the new player interacts with a Troll / Beholder / Sphere of Annihilation!”). Only the GM knows for sure if that Beholder is actually a Beholder, and not a Gas Spore, or a Troll or Sphere of Annihilation inside an illusion of a Beholder. But, if things are what they appear, then the (veteran) players can have the same perspective on the scene as the GM, have the same ability to evaluate the fun potential granted by the hidden information that they share.

Still, I generally agree that the GM has a unique perspective wrt hidden information. I do not, however, agree that that position is exclusively beneficial; that is, it is filled with its own biases which at times will ultimately be detrimental to making the determination of how much fun a given element will be in a particular configuration.

However, that’s all small potatoes.

The real meat… is like the chef. Sure, the chef has inside information on what they made, but the consumer has inside information on what they like. If the chef hands the vegetarian a steak, it doesn’t matter how good the steak is, the chef has failed. Or if they withhold the salt from the customer who ordered the corn, because of how perfect the corn is today, when this particular customer wants even perfect corn to be salted, they have failed.

Same for gaming. If the GM has made a really cool “hidden information” challenge, but the players aren’t into that kind of thing, the GM fails by not giving them the information they need to have fun.

Yes, yes, obviously, communication, know your players, etc. My point is that we don’t have any evidence that the chef knows what the consumers enjoy, and that most responses haven’t included “the players’ preferences” in their evaluation of the “correct” response.

Again, it feels really weird for me to be arguing this side of things, because I like / enjoy hidden information more than most, and I encourage hidden information at the table at most tables. However, I have gamed with players who simply don’t enjoy such things (but who understand that letting *some* things be secret adds to the enjoyment of some players, and so accept a (heavily weighted) balance of hidden vs not hidden information).

That’s what’s missing: it’s not the GM or the chef, but the individual who does and should have primacy on what they enjoy.

And the same goes when you expand from the “single encounter” to the “stream of encounters” that you described. Sure, setting the general policy such that you don’t give away unnecessary information (see also “my hatred of GM-given recaps” or most other targeted recaps) and such is fine… if the GM knows enough to be creating a path that the players will enjoy. And, until that conversation about preferences happens, only the players know what they enjoy. And, even after that conversation, the players still have primacy on knowing what they enjoy.

Yes, I know your “rules” have their own version of a “people are idiots” clause related to this particular subject. And I’d risk drawing suss of being an imposter if I didn’t agree that people are idiots. Still, one can, as GM, Create encounters to test such things, and keep an open ear to players commenting about how maybe the GM isn’t cooking the food that they’d prefer.

[gbaji]

Sure. Individual tastes vary. But there are general trends that tend to follow set rules. A professional chef will have a better idea of how to prepare any given meal that the individual wants, and likely generate a better result that the individual will enjoy more.

Lots of people "want" things in the short term that aren't necessarily good for them, or even enjoyable for them, in the long run. And yes, lots of players, especially young/new players, think enjoyment of the game is "winning". It's about rolling well. It's about defeating the opponent/monster/encounter. So yeah. They will tend to use whatever tools maximize their ability to do that. But I think that a lot of that is false enjoyment. It's an illusion. It's like a diet of nothing but boxed mac-n-cheese and canned chili. It's quick. It's easy. It may even taste good (ish). But once someone starts experiencing better food regularly, they will realize how empty and unsatisfying what they used to eat really was (and well, unhealthy).

It's always a balancing act as a GM, but I think establishing rules for your game and following them yourself, while some players may chafe at that initially, over time, they will realize that they are having a much more fun time. The encounters will have actual meaning. Decisions will matter. And yes, they'll come to enjoy the unknown of exploring a game environment. You may have to ease players into this (especially if you have a whole group of young or less experienced players), but you should make at least some effort as a GM to do this.

Also never lose sight that this is a group game. Catering to one player's enjoyment (especially the more questionable ones from a "fair game experience" pov), may often result in a less enjoyable game for the other players. As several posters have pointed out, once you let one player fudge the dice regularly, or look up monsters or other sourcebooks that give extra information, or just generally allow for quasi-cheating behavior, they will feel that they must do this as well just to "keep up".

Just as the game should not be a conflict between the GM and the players, it should also not be a competition/conflict among the players either. Even in games where the characters may be at odds, you don't want the players to be competing with each other in some sort of meta-game way. That way will lead to a death spiral of your game.

[Quertus]

Some players prefer being "lucky" such that they never seem to roll below a 10, and always seem to get that natural 20 on important saves. They might say that calling them out reduces their fun, but their mathematical shift vs. a fair player's rolls means that other players need to start fudging too if they want to continue being effective. On player can very much set the tone for a table regardless of what other players might want.

Perfect information tactical runs aren't intrinsically bad. Neither is pseudo-isekai where the characters are clearly player avatars used to engage with canonical D&D lore. We have no reason to believe that these are true for all of Tal's group, so it's okay to call out one player trying to set that tone.

Sigh. Now I’ve got to argue against another of my preferences. :smallamused:

Which… might be a good thing, might shed some fresh light on the subject.

So, I’m not a fan of cheating. However, eventually I had to ask myself, what does it matter? That is, so what if I’m allied with a statistical anomaly? How does that in any way hurt my fun? And the answer was, it doesn’t.

Now, you’ve got a false… something. A false premise? Let’s go with that. You’ve got a false premise that “other players need to start fudging too if they want to continue being effective”. And that’s so wrong, I struggle to imagine why you believe that. So let’s poke at this a bit.

Imagine you ran a cheating BDF at the same table as me running Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named. You cheat and roll a natural 20 on your (untrained) Spellcraft check, getting (with your -4 Intelligence penalty) a 16. Meanwhile, I just stare at the GM for asking for a roll, as my bonus is an order of magnitude higher than the DC. I try to find some excuse to take a 100-point penalty, and still succeed on a 1. I didn’t have to do anything to still have Quertus be effective, even with you cheating.

“But Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard.” Ok, fine. You play a cheating Wizard at the same table as… a gestalt between two Fighter characters that aren’t mine (and thus I have no clue whether their tech is compatible without this “gestalt”). You cheat and get a natural 20 on initiative… which still has you going after this Fighter… and after his free surprise round. He kills literally hundreds of foes before your Wizard gets a turn. Yet he didn’t have to cheat to still be effective.

So then you bring a cheating 2WF UMD Rogue with Acorn of Far Travel permanence on their buffs, who casts all the spells and does all the damage with all the stealth. And who never misses, or falls a saving throw. Ok, cool, the Fighter still kills more cannon fodder per round, and Quertus still teleports the party for free. Oh, you use Astral Projection shenanigans to “cast” all your spells “for free”, even more “for free” than Quertus? And you summon enough monsters to kill more than the Fighter? And you cast Chain Heal and Chain Harm at will as a free action? Cool. Maybe at some point you’ll violate “Balance to the Table”; until then, Quertus is stoked about traveling with such a competent companion (although he may warn you about the vulnerability to Silver Swords of Astral Projection, just in case you were unaware).

All that said, the issue here is “On[e] player can very much set the tone for a table regardless of what other players might want” very much describes Talakeal’s - or any GM’s - actions in shutting down cheating or book gazing or what have you without having a conversation with the players about their preferences, no?

[Jay R]

Clearly, you are not familiar with the Talakeal horror stories of threads past. If you were, you would all ready know that the two items listed above is the root cause of this thread.

Quite familiar, actually. I have argued with Talakeal off-and-on for a long time, including 8 years ago, when he was calling DMs “control freaks” for, among other things, “Refusing to let the players look at the rule books (even their own) without permission”.

And yes, the need to be worthy of each other’s trust, and then to trust each other, is a running theme. That’s one of the reasons I mentioned it.


Imagine if you had said, “only the chef can know what foods you will enjoy”, or “only Quertus can know what gender identity you’ll enjoy”. You’d see that these are obviously wrong, right? And they’re wrong in different ways, but there’s a similar… direction to their wrongness. [this is the error checking code. If you hear something that doesn’t sound like it aligns with these, then I’ve failed to communicate my idea]

Oh, agreed.


The real meat… is like the chef. Sure, the chef has inside information on what they made, but the consumer has inside information on what they like. If the chef hands the vegetarian a steak, it doesn’t matter how good the steak is, the chef has failed. Or if they withhold the salt from the customer who ordered the corn, because of how perfect the corn is today, when this particular customer wants even perfect corn to be salted, they have failed.
<snip>
And, until that conversation about preferences happens, only the players know what they enjoy. And, even after that conversation, the players still have primacy on knowing what they enjoy.

Agreed. The crucial fact you’re missing is that that conversation hasn’t happened. We (and the GM) don’t have the consumer’s opinion after tasting the chef’s special. We have an immediate emotional reaction to hearing about the chef’s special. But we have no information on what they thought after the encounter. None.

Sometimes the chef is telling the consumer not to salt the anchovies because he knows how salty anchovies are.


Yes, I know your “rules” have their own version of a “people are idiots” clause related to this particular subject

No, I do not have a “people are idiots” clause. I don’t think people are idiots. If you think that rule claims that people are idiots then you misunderstood it. Let me give some examples that are entirely about myself, to make it clear that I am not implying idiocy, but simply normal human reactions.

What I want at the start of the fencing bout is a nice simple safe way to defeat my opponent. If I find one, I will use it. But what I will want the next day is to have won a hard-fought, difficult fencing match against an extremely dangerous opponent.

What I want halfway up the stone face is a safe place to put my foot. But what I will want the next day is the satisfaction of having scaled a sheer cliff face.

And yes, what I want at the start of a D&D encounter is a quick, easy victory. I will always look for one, and take it if it’s there. Who wouldn’t? But what I will want tomorrow is to have brilliantly and valiantly turned the tables to barely survive a deadly encounter where it looked like we were all about to die.

In all three cases, I am not saying that I was an idiot. I am saying that my reaction to a difficult situation in the middle of it is not the same as my reaction to it afterward. The feeling of vicarious suspense in the middle of a movie is different from the vicarious satisfaction at the end of it.


And I’d risk drawing suss of being an imposter if I didn’t agree that people are idiots. Still, one can, as GM, Create encounters to test such things, and keep an open ear to players commenting about how maybe the GM isn’t cooking the food that they’d prefer.

Certainly. And in this case, we have heard no such comment.

It’s possible that the players would only have had fun if they got to read the books. That seems unlikely to me, but it’s possible. [You and I have had several disagreements in which you were far readier than I was to believe that there is only one way the players can have fun, and any deviation from that one way is a wrong step for a GM. I therefore assume that it seems to you that I'm too ready to believe that the DM's approach is an acceptable one. We have different approaches, and there's nothing wrong with that.] But whether it is possible or not, we have no evidence about whether it was the case this time. Nobody complained, even when they were giving "dirty looks".

Two weeks ago, I ran a game for five 3rd level PCs, on their way to help relieve a siege. Setting it up, I put about 50 orcs minis on the table. One player told me (days later) that his immediate reaction was “That’s too many; we can’t deal with that.” But I knew that the orcs were exhausted from fighting for 4 hours, that they were all focused on the people inside the palisade they were trying to break down, that the PCs had a free surprise round, and that the PCs had several useful area effects. Eight to ten rounds later, the five remaining orcs were fleeing.

It was a great encounter, and the players are still raving about it. They love the fact that they survived a deadly encounter where it looked like we were all about to die. I actually do keep an open ear to player comments. In this case, the comments were that their initial reaction was wrong, and that the encounter was just right. Like any good chef, I am more interested in their comments after they have eaten the meal, rather than before.

[GloatingSwine]

Clearly, you are not familiar with the Talakeal horror stories of threads past. If you were, you would all ready know that the two items listed above is the root cause of this thread.

TBF the root cause of this thread is probably Bob.

Takaleal's group would probably react better to "open book" encounters where they have the monster's stats*, but stat-card style feelies would be better than passing the monster manual around because the real problem with looking at the books in this sort of situation is that everything has to stop whilst everyone has a go on it.

[icefractal]

You play a cheating Wizard at the same table as… a gestalt between two Fighter characters that aren’t mine (and thus I have no clue whether their tech is compatible without this “gestalt”). You cheat and get a natural 20 on initiative… which still has you going after this Fighter… and after his free surprise round. He kills literally hundreds of foes before your Wizard gets a turn. Yet he didn’t have to cheat to still be effective.I know this isn't the main point of the post, but ... lolwat? :smallconfused:

Like, how are they doing those things? I guess a Bloodstorm Blade could kill hundreds of foes in one turn in very specific circumstances (tons of weak foes in thrown weapon range, might need to be flying to fit), but where the **** did the supreme initiative and the free surprise round come from? Is "gestalt Fighter" the new slang for Pun-Pun?

If the point is that sufficient optimization has a bigger impact than cheating - sure, but the GM (and usually other players) would know about that optimization in advance, and could tell you to balance to the table if appropriate. Cheating is (by definition?) secret, so you're not giving them the chance to object. It's not, but if it were possible to play a high-op Mailman but pretend to be a Warlock to everyone, even the GM, and claim that the scientific-notation-requiring damage was just a lucky roll ... then I'd call that dishonest and undesirable player behavior as well.

[gbaji]

Now, you’ve got a false… something. A false premise? Let’s go with that. You’ve got a false premise that “other players need to start fudging too if they want to continue being effective”. And that’s so wrong, I struggle to imagine why you believe that. So let’s poke at this a bit.

Imagine you ran a cheating BDF at the same table as me running Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named. You cheat and roll a natural 20 on your (untrained) Spellcraft check, getting (with your -4 Intelligence penalty) a 16. Meanwhile, I just stare at the GM for asking for a roll, as my bonus is an order of magnitude higher than the DC. I try to find some excuse to take a 100-point penalty, and still succeed on a 1. I didn’t have to do anything to still have Quertus be effective, even with you cheating.

“But Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard.” Ok, fine. You play a cheating Wizard at the same table as… a gestalt between two Fighter characters that aren’t mine (and thus I have no clue whether their tech is compatible without this “gestalt”). You cheat and get a natural 20 on initiative… which still has you going after this Fighter… and after his free surprise round. He kills literally hundreds of foes before your Wizard gets a turn. Yet he didn’t have to cheat to still be effective.

So then you bring a cheating 2WF UMD Rogue with Acorn of Far Travel permanence on their buffs, who casts all the spells and does all the damage with all the stealth. And who never misses, or falls a saving throw. Ok, cool, the Fighter still kills more cannon fodder per round, and Quertus still teleports the party for free. Oh, you use Astral Projection shenanigans to “cast” all your spells “for free”, even more “for free” than Quertus? And you summon enough monsters to kill more than the Fighter? And you cast Chain Heal and Chain Harm at will as a free action? Cool. Maybe at some point you’ll violate “Balance to the Table”; until then, Quertus is stoked about traveling with such a competent companion (although he may warn you about the vulnerability to Silver Swords of Astral Projection, just in case you were unaware).

I find it odd (interesting? telling even?) that all of your examples seem to be cases where the cheating player's character is so incredibly gimped at whatever encounter the group is overcoming that their cheating just doesn't matter because the wizard will still totally out spell him, and the fighter will still totally out kill him. But that itself suggests that there is some level of competition among the players which maybe is driving the player of the (seeming gimped) character to cheat.

But what happens if you have a group of actually more or less balanced characters in a group? Yes. Different ones will have different areas that they shine based on the particulars, but the point is to have some sort of power equity involved across the gaming experience. I mean. I guess we could pretend that this just isn't a factor and that every player is perfect happy that their characters were basically just a spectator while, once again, the party powerhouse saved the day. Cause the whole party wins, right?

That's a pretty rare set of players that are going to be happy with that situation. There's a reason why a huge amount of game design work goes into exactly the subject of power balance. There is an assumption that lack of sufficient balance creates a lack of enjoyment for the players, else why bother?

So yeah. One player cheating upsets that balance in exactly the same way that one class being monumentally more powerful does. And that's absolutely something that the GM should make some effort to fix. The power level stuff can be difficult to deal with. Sometimes, it's baked into the game system. Sometimes, it's a function of the scenario/adventure. Playing in an ongoing game world absolutely creates situations where some characters on an adventure will be more powerful than others. But there are ways to handle those situations to balance things out (creating encounters to ensure that all characters are engaged and challenged).

But cheating is worse IMO. The GM and players can work around the other stuff. But it's not like the other players aren't aware of the cheating going on. It's a player choosing to do this, not just a side effect of game mechanics. The players are going to feel like "well, if Joe gets to do that, why not me"? And why not? "I'm powerful enough to handle this encounter, so I don't need something to make it easier" (said no player ever). If cheating ensures that you spend less time, expend fewer spells, or whatever other thing that allows you to objectively be more successful, and the GM is allowing another player to get away with it, you can bet it'll spread to other players as well.

And that will absolutely throw actual encounter balance out the window. The GM will start putting the assumption of cheating into his calculation for how tough the encounter(s) should be. And that'll skew things. And then heaven help the new player who decides to join your table one day and suddenly his characters are getting killed left and right because it's just assumed that you'll make that saving throw every time, and just assumed you'll be able to jump out of the deadly trap every time, and just assumed that you'll crit every other swing to kill things super fast, and when they just roll honestly based on what's on their character sheet? Death.

it's just a really horrifically bad thing to allow to run at a table. It'll take it over. Well. And the players aren't really learning good game playing skills either. Heaven help them if/when they ever join another table where cheating isn't allowed. The gap between what they expect to be able to do and what is realistic for them to do will be huge at that point. it's just a bad idea to ignore this.

[Quertus]

No, I do not have a “people are idiots” clause.

You and I have had several disagreements in which you were far readier than I was to believe that there is only one way the players can have fun, and any deviation from that one way is a wrong step for a GM. I therefore assume that it seems to you that I'm too ready to believe that the DM's approach is an acceptable one. We have different approaches, and [I]there's nothing wrong with that.

Your Clause and my “people are idiots” aren’t as far apart as they would seem. Unless I’m more senile that I believe, and you haven’t used that clause to argue that people cannot simply be taken at their word for what they want / that a good GM is like a good… word… business analyst, carefully evaluating what the customer says that they want. My “people are idiots” is… not always as strong as it sounds.

I’m too senile to be sure about your references, but I’m guessing… or, rather, I would categorize my strong opinions as a) railroading (where I’ve since learned that some players actually do want a Linear adventure (no contest that I called BadWrongFun there)); b) what *I* personally find fun (where, yeah, I’ve got definite opinions); c) what a particular player or group of players enjoy (again, yes, I think that there’s right and wrong answers); d) Fatal.

But the relevant to the thread part is, I agree that there are multiple approaches, but/and (dis)agree in that I believe that not all approaches are good, let alone equal. And was therefore attempting to point out… a… strong indicator? (Ie, communication, “business analyst” / scientist testing, etc)


If the point is that sufficient optimization has a bigger impact than cheating

Well, that’s one of the points, yeah. “Characters acting outside their area of expertise” was kinda supposed to be another bit of low-hanging fruit.

Part of the point was, until you build an Omni-competent character, capable of out-performing every character in every role, there’s still something for the other PCs to do. In fact, even if you do build an Omni-competent PC who out-performs every other PC all the time, there still can be stuff for the other PCs to do, even if that stuff is generally not as impactful as what the Omni-competent PC does if they take the same action.

Granted, I played a Sentient Potted Plant next to Not!Thor and “these guys” (ie, some more “normal” PCs), and still everyone had fun, got to do things (OK, I only got to talk / strategize… and remember where we parked - but that was plenty for me to have fun).

That said, “information” is actually… big… in that it makes it much more likely that the informed player can/will have their PC make a more optimal move. If we take a chess master, blindfold them, and have them call out their moves blind against me, who gets to see the chessboard? I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that I expect I’ll have the advantage. (Note: they do not get to see / hear my moves - 100% “fog of war” on the location of my pieces, always. Clear?)

Which, if you think about it, might explain why my examples involved big advantages. :smallwink: Or maybe it was just to try to make the point obvious, that there are multiple advantages one can leverage, from optimization to niche protection / specialization to information disparity to, yes, cheating, that one can utilize to make the final product match the table’s balance parameters (however narrow or broad they may be). Shrug.

[gbaji]

Yes. But optimization/specialization is a component of the game system you (and your players) have chosen to use to play. If you are "following the rules", then the fault (to whatever degree we believe there's a flaw/fault at all), is of the game system, or the implementation of that system, or interpretation of the rules. If someone is "cheating", they are, by definition, not following the rules that everyone else (presumably) all agreed upon when they started playing. That's not something that everyone has equal access to, and everyone can know about, and everyone can just do because it's part of the game.

Um... Unless, as several of us have pointed out, it becomes what "everyone has equal access to", and "everyone can know about", and "everyone can just do because it's part of the game". And that's what happens when other players decide to start cheating because they see one player doing it and not suffering any consequences. The behavior becomes normalized, and the players will begin to treat it just as a normal part of the game. And sure. If you're fine with that in your game, then go for it. It's your game.

I suspect that, in most games and with most player groups, you'd be better off nipping that in the bud as early as possible. Heck. If I was invited to a gaming table and everyone just cheated on their die rolls left and right and acted like that was just the normal thing to do, I'd play for exactly one session and never look back. I'm the first person to say that you should not make die rolls alone be the primary determinant of success in an RPG, but when you do have die rolling it has to be fair, otherwise just play interactive story telling RPing instead and be done with it. It's just as fun and no one feels like they have to go through hoops to decide whether or how well they succeeded at something. Just decide when great luck/success will make the game more fun and declare it to be so. Save the players some money by not having them have to buy and bring dice.

It's the dishonestly that is the problem. Not the resolution methodology.

[Quertus]

I find it odd (interesting? telling even?) that all of your examples seem to be cases where the cheating player's character is so incredibly gimped at whatever encounter the group is overcoming that their cheating just doesn't matter

Thank you for noticing? “When there’s strong niche protection, or even strong differentiation between characters, cheating really doesn’t do much” was kinda the point.


because the wizard will still totally out spell him,

Um… that never happened. :smallfrown: I mean, yes, the Wizard will cast more spells than the muggle, and every other obvious “person who does X will do more X than person who doesn’t do X” combination you care to list, which was kinda my point, but this specific situation never occurred in my examples.


But that itself suggests that there is some level of competition among the players which maybe is driving the player of the (seeming gimped) character to cheat.


I mean. I guess we could pretend that this just isn't a factor and that every player is perfect happy that their characters were basically just a spectator while, once again, the party powerhouse saved the day.

Where are you getting these from? They have nothing to do with what I wrote.


you can bet it'll spread to other players as well.

Not IME. “We just kinda took pity on the poor player who couldn’t seem to comprehend how to have fun without cheating” was the most common response (Iirc - darn senility).

[False God]

Here’s the thing:

*snip for brevity*

The GM is clearly the odd man out here. So the GM needs to get with the program, and stop hurting everyone else’s fun.

When the players say, “that’s not what we find fun”, I expect the GM to say, “Oh, of course. Right.”, ignore it, keep playing, and pretty much forget the incident five minutes later.

Which, don’t get me wrong, I personally prefer Exploration and hidden information. But no one - not me, not the GM - has any right to be an intentional detriment to what the players know that they enjoy.

The GM is a player too. They are not some robot who just does whatever the other players tell them to do. If a player is not enjoying some aspect of the actual play, the meta interactions, or the group dynamic or whatever; and they speak up about it, the group disagreeing with their feelings on the subject should not mean that person needs to sit down and shut up and do what everyone else wants.

Players can "enjoy" a lot of things, the fact that they enjoy running wild and murdering townsfolk does not mean that's the sort of game the GM wants to run. The fact that they "enjoy" pulling books out to look up monsters to get all the details on them out-of-game to use in-game does not mean that's the sort of game the GM wants to run.

The Game, collectively, capital G, is about "everyone's fun", GM included. Excluding the GM from being part of the "fun" is a prime reason we have such a horrendous ratio of "Players"(people who always play and never run) to GMs, and why the few who do GM are often "Permanent GM" and never get to be players. Yes, there is some degree of compromise that needs to be reached all around, but that compromise should never be one-sided.

"The Customer is Always Right" CANNOT and should not be applied to TTRPG players.

[kyoryu]

"The Customer is Always Right" CANNOT and should not be applied to TTRPG players.

"The Customer is Always Right" should really be read with a little more nuance.

If someone says there's a problem, there's a problem. If something is bothering someone, it's bothering them. Period.

They may be wrong in their root cause analysis, and they may be wrong in terms of how to fix it, and they certainly don't have carte blanche to implement whatever fix they want (which may be to the detriment of others), but you should always accept the problems that people say (unless you have reason to believe they're not acting in good faith).

That's a more useful interpretation, generally.

[Quertus]

If a player is not enjoying some aspect of the actual play, the meta interactions, or the group dynamic or whatever; and they speak up about it, the group disagreeing with their feelings on the subject should not mean that person needs to sit down and shut up and do what everyone else wants.

Consider very carefully: the poster I was replying to indicated that the group should sacrifice their fun at the whim of one petty tyrant, which you accepted in silence, whereas you choose to take issue with my comment that it is better for the one to accept the fun of the many.

Are you really sure you want to die on that hill, of saying “how dare you be inconsiderate to one person’s fun - you should be inconsiderate to everyone’s fun instead!”? :smallamused:

So as not to have the GM abusing their power to get their Fun at the expense of the group, I strongly encourage GMs to err on the side of listening to their players, and optimizing the fun that the players have.

[kyoryu]

Consider very carefully: the poster I was replying to indicated that the group should sacrifice their fun at the whim of one petty tyrant, which you accepted in silence, whereas you choose to take issue with my comment that it is better for the one to accept the fun of the many.

Are you really sure you want to die on that hill, of saying “how dare you be inconsiderate to one person’s fun - you should be inconsiderate to everyone’s fun instead!”? :smallamused:

So as not to have the GM abusing their power to get their Fun at the expense of the group, I strongly encourage GMs to err on the side of listening to their players, and optimizing the fun that the players have.

There's an excluded middle here.

In this scenario, when possible, the best solution is to find a reasonable accommodation to the player that doesn't unnecessarily impinge the fun of the rest of the group. Like, if a player says "I want more X", but the rest of the group doesn't really want it, it's usually reasonable to add a sprinkle of X here and there without making it the focus of the game.

In some cases that's impossible, and then, yeah, majority wins. But that's not the case most of the time.

[NichG]

The basic structure I tend to like is that everyone has a certain limited 'sphere of agency' where their decisions by default are unexamined with respect to the overall table enjoyment, with a shared interface space in which decisions made at the interface are expected to take table enjoyment into account. The hybrid model helps prevent meta-politicking (e.g. two players teaming up to browbeat a third into making a certain build decision) and also creates a decision space for each participant which can be as uncomplex as they'd like (so that people don't feel like they always have to do theory-of-mind sorts of considerations when making every single choice in the game).

I think its also useful to do the same thing with regards to concerns, such that there are things which are shared concerns that everyone is permitted to care about, but there are protected 'spheres of interest' such that a player cannot say for example 'I will only be happy if his character is dumber than my character' or 'I will only be happy if his character obeys my character'.

The actual shape of those spheres of agency and interest and the shared spaces are a per-table matter, and don't usually need to be formalized. So this is more of a framework for thinking about 'what is reasonable?' when conflicts arise that can't be simply resolved or when metagame manipulation starts to occur.

One example of a set of boundaries could be something like:

- Each player has authority-without-responsibility for their build decisions and choices about character personality (Player's role, acting within their sphere of agency)
- Each player has authority-without-responsibility for their own mental state at the game (Player's role, acting within their sphere of agency). So e.g. if they want to read Monster Manual entries in their spare time, or play NWN and learn about D&D that way, etc then this set of boundaries would say that its unreasonable for the DM or another player to try to forbid that.
- However, each player has authority-with-responsibility for their choice as to what their character does and how their character behaves in any given situation (Player's role, acting in shared space)
- And similarly, each player has responsibility in their OOC interactions with other players (civility, not spoiling someone who doesn't want to be spoiled, etc).
- The DM has authority-without-responsibility for the decisions of NPCs in and out of combat (DM's role, acting within their sphere of agency)
- The DM has authority-with-responsibility for the design of those NPCs and the overall campaign scenario (DM's role, but acting in shared space)
- The DM has authority-with-responsibility for mediating table dynamics (DM's role, but acting in shared space)
- Each participant at the table solely owns interest in their character's attitudes and opinions about elements of the game, as well as out-of-character attitudes and opinions. E.g. someone is not allowed to say 'I want your character to feel this way' or 'you have to like my naming sense' or things like that.
- Participants at the table have shared interest about the themes and elements of the campaign ('lets not have PvP, lets play villains, etc')

[Quertus]

There's an excluded middle here.

In this scenario, when possible, the best solution is to find a reasonable accommodation to the player that doesn't unnecessarily impinge the fun of the rest of the group. Like, if a player says "I want more X", but the rest of the group doesn't really want it, it's usually reasonable to add a sprinkle of X here and there without making it the focus of the game.

In some cases that's impossible, and then, yeah, majority wins. But that's not the case most of the time.

Sure. In fact, that “excluded” middle is what I was advocating, with talk of, y’know, talking.

In making my point, I just parroted back a comment from one end of the spectrum, changing two key things: whose behaviors were being changed (players -> GM), and actually giving a reason for the change (—- -> “we find this fun”).

[gbaji]

Let me re-quote this, for reference.


Now, you’ve got a false… something. A false premise? Let’s go with that. You’ve got a false premise that “other players need to start fudging too if they want to continue being effective”. And that’s so wrong, I struggle to imagine why you believe that. So let’s poke at this a bit.

Imagine you ran a cheating BDF at the same table as me running Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named. You cheat and roll a natural 20 on your (untrained) Spellcraft check, getting (with your -4 Intelligence penalty) a 16. Meanwhile, I just stare at the GM for asking for a roll, as my bonus is an order of magnitude higher than the DC. I try to find some excuse to take a 100-point penalty, and still succeed on a 1. I didn’t have to do anything to still have Quertus be effective, even with you cheating.

“But Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard.” Ok, fine. You play a cheating Wizard at the same table as… a gestalt between two Fighter characters that aren’t mine (and thus I have no clue whether their tech is compatible without this “gestalt”). You cheat and get a natural 20 on initiative… which still has you going after this Fighter… and after his free surprise round. He kills literally hundreds of foes before your Wizard gets a turn. Yet he didn’t have to cheat to still be effective.

So then you bring a cheating 2WF UMD Rogue with Acorn of Far Travel permanence on their buffs, who casts all the spells and does all the damage with all the stealth. And who never misses, or falls a saving throw. Ok, cool, the Fighter still kills more cannon fodder per round, and Quertus still teleports the party for free. Oh, you use Astral Projection shenanigans to “cast” all your spells “for free”, even more “for free” than Quertus? And you summon enough monsters to kill more than the Fighter? And you cast Chain Heal and Chain Harm at will as a free action? Cool. Maybe at some point you’ll violate “Balance to the Table”; until then, Quertus is stoked about traveling with such a competent companion (although he may warn you about the vulnerability to Silver Swords of Astral Projection, just in case you were unaware).



Thank you for noticing? “When there’s strong niche protection, or even strong differentiation between characters, cheating really doesn’t do much” was kinda the point.

Except that's such an absurd condition as to be a meaningless point. Most of the time, in most games, the characters (and the opponents they have to deal with) are/should be somewhat in balance. You have presented cases where the balance is so incredibly out of whack that it's essentially an unplayable table (well, for the gimped PC), then arguing that it's ok for that person to cheat in that situation.

Let's also not forget that you raised these examples in direct response to someone claiming that cheating by one player will tend to result in the cheating spreading to other players as a way of keeping up and/or balancing things out. You declared this a "false premise", but then proceeded to list a set of examples to counter that premise that are so utterly absurd as to strain the mind to even take them seriously. Most of the time, people are cheating to give themselves an edge in some way and to be more capable than others, not because they are so incredibly outmatched by everyone around them that they feel they have to cheat just to be semi-relevant (and you even dismiss that in your examples too).

Me: "because the wizard will still totally out spell him,"



Um… that never happened. :smallfrown: I mean, yes, the Wizard will cast more spells than the muggle, and every other obvious “person who does X will do more X than person who doesn’t do X” combination you care to list, which was kinda my point, but this specific situation never occurred in my examples.

You literally said that you wouldn't care if the other guy cheated to roll a 20 on his spellcraft check because "my bonus is an order of magnitude higher than the DC. I try to find some excuse to take a 100-point penalty, and still succeed on a 1. I didn’t have to do anything to still have Quertus be effective, even with you cheating".

That's *not* you saying it doesn't matter that he cheats because your wizard will "still totally out spell him"?

I'm pointing out that your cases are absurd because they rest on the assumption that a) if someone cheats it's ok if they are totally gimped relative to the other characters and b) that this is somehow a "normal" situation in the first place. The answer to both is "no" btw. Yet, somehow, you're refusing to even acknowledge that this is what you actually said.

Maybe I totally misunderstood. But if that's the case, then by all means clarify your statement. Don't just say "I didn't say that". Because... um... you did.

Me: "I mean. I guess we could pretend that this just isn't a factor and that every player is perfect happy that their characters were basically just a spectator while, once again, the party powerhouse saved the day."


Where are you getting these from? They have nothing to do with what I wrote.

I'm getting it from your own post. I was specifically pointing out that even in your examples, the character who is cheating is *still* motivated to do so out of a need to compete with the other player characters. He's cheating because he's so weak compared to the other characters, that he has to do so just to be relevant. In that quote, I was examining the possible thought process that might have to occur for that not to be the case, and finding it wanting.

You aren't claiming that your examples were *not* ones in which the cheating character was outmatched in the situation at hand, right? I mean, you have a fighter going first (despite the cheating wizard guy rolling a 20 on initiative) and then "kills literally hundreds of foes before your Wizard gets a turn". Great. You turned the example around to show a gimped wizard. But, again, your example is absurd. And it still doesn't actually counter the starting position that players do this to compete with other players. if anything, your examples reinforce that claim.

I'm speculating that the motivation here is that a player doesn't just want to be a spectator while everyone else gets to do stuff, and that might be what motivates them to cheat. So while *you* the super powerful character may not be bothered, it's still not a good/happy thing for the table to manage. If there's that much of a power imbalance, maybe address that. Allowing cheating and just looking the other way is a terrible way to do things.

And you're still ignoring the other 99.999999999% of cases where the cheating isn't in response to such ridiculous PC power imbalances, but the more basic "I just want my character to be more effective and stand out among a party of otherwise relatively equal power". Or just "I want to *win*".


Not IME. “We just kinda took pity on the poor player who couldn’t seem to comprehend how to have fun without cheating” was the most common response (Iirc - darn senility).

Well, that's mighty nice of you. Taking "pity" on a player who's character is so completely powerless in your game that you just, what? Pat him on the head and say "you do you", or something? How about addressing the actual problem at hand instead of just letting a player like that stew in his own juices, cheat to feel relevant, and then you just kinda laugh at him because he's still not terribly capable?

You're describing about the most toxic table environment I've ever heard of, and claiming that's "normal".

Sorry. I would *never* allow that to go on at my table. Ever. I get that you're being hyperbolic here, but the examples and cases you are reaching for, far from making a valid counterargument, are actually presenting even worse cases then we were originally talking about. I mean, sure, I think cheating on dice rolls is also minor compared to having a serial killer at the table, who's literally taking out players one by one or something ("Man. John's been in the bathroom a long time. And Susie never came back from that snack run to the kitchen. Oh well, let's keep paying..."). Clearly, we can all imagine scenarios where cheating at a game isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. But how about we imagine scenarios where there aren't these insane other conditions going on that make cheating seem minor? You know, like most gaming tables are going to actually be like.



Consider very carefully: the poster I was replying to indicated that the group should sacrifice their fun at the whim of one petty tyrant, which you accepted in silence, whereas you choose to take issue with my comment that it is better for the one to accept the fun of the many.

Are you really sure you want to die on that hill, of saying “how dare you be inconsiderate to one person’s fun - you should be inconsiderate to everyone’s fun instead!”? :smallamused:

So as not to have the GM abusing their power to get their Fun at the expense of the group, I strongly encourage GMs to err on the side of listening to their players, and optimizing the fun that the players have.

It's not an abuse of GM powers to enforce the basic rules of the game that everyone is playing. And it certainly doesn't make the GM a "Tyrant" (even setting aside the correct definition of that term versus the popular misunderstanding of it which you seem to be using).

And yes. In your examples, do you think the player you are taking pity on is actually having fun? I doubt it seriously.

[Quertus]

@NichG - I kept reading your list, and not understanding why it wasn’t making me feel :smallsmile: I finally figured it out:



- The DM has authority-with-responsibility for mediating table dynamics (DM's role, but acting in shared space)

The GM isn’t always the best person at the table to mediate conflicts, and they shouldn’t need to be.

Particularly in light of the growing trend of comments like this:



we have such a horrendous ratio of "Players"(people who always play and never run) to GMs, and why the few who do GM are often "Permanent GM" and never get to be players.


I’d like to make the barrier for entry for new GM’s as low as possible. One way to achieve that is to decouple “conflict resolution” from “content provider”.

Of course, given that you said things like,



a per-table matter,

One example of a set of boundaries

I guess I shouldn’t worry too much.

[Anymage]

I find it ironic that Quertus' response to my comment on cheating involves a ridiculously optimized/minmaxed party. Since that's another thing where one player doing so can force the rest of the team to follow suit or face obsolescence, regardless of the personal tastes of the rest of the table.


I’d like to make the barrier for entry for new GM’s as low as possible. One way to achieve that is to decouple “conflict resolution” from “content provider”.

The DM runs the whole world that isn't the PCs. This includes, among other things, directing spotlight though whose strengths are being catered to and who the NPCs are interacting with. And also preparing encounters. The latter is difficult to offload without giving away massive chunks of the plot, while the former is basically the DM's job. As much as I support making the DM's job easier and encouraging them to offload some of the mental load onto other players, expecting Tanya with her bard to control the table dynamic is more than a touch unrealistic.

[gbaji]

I find it ironic that Quertus' response to my comment on cheating involves a ridiculously optimized/minmaxed party. Since that's another thing where one player doing so can force the rest of the team to follow suit or face obsolescence, regardless of the personal tastes of the rest of the table.

I hadn't even considered that aspect. But yeah. Min/max play, when taken too far, does also tend to force the other players to follow suit just to "keep up". And yeah. Allowing players who are less capable of doing this to cheat on their rolls as a balance is a really strange way to justify things. I guess the broader point here is to recognize that players do compete amongst each other to some degree. They do all want to have relevance in a game and not just be a spectator. And as a GM it's important to recognize this need and manage both the game rules and expectations of the players to ensure that the table isn't forcing some players to maybe play in a way they are not happy or comfortable with.

Hey. If you've got a table full of folks who just love to min/max, then that's great. But be sure that's actually the case, and not one or two who love to do so, and the rest feeling that if they don't they wont be able to contribute. I've honestly never gotten the need some players have to "be the best", but I can recognize that it is actually a thing and account for it.



The DM runs the whole world that isn't the PCs. This includes, among other things, directing spotlight though whose strengths are being catered to and who the NPCs are interacting with. And also preparing encounters. The latter is difficult to offload without giving away massive chunks of the plot, while the former is basically the DM's job. As much as I support making the DM's job easier and encouraging them to offload some of the mental load onto other players, expecting Tanya with her bard to control the table dynamic is more than a touch unrealistic.

I think it also depends on what we mean by "resolving conflicts". If we're talking about player conflicts, there may be someone other than the GM who can handle that. That's about personality conflicts, personal issues, out of game stuff, whatever. Having someone else play peacemaker in those situations is fine.

But resolving in game character conflicts is 100% the job of the GM. The players can't do it, because they're the ones involved in the conflict. If character A wants to do one thing and character B wants to do another, and they disagree on which method is best, or will work, or whatever, the GM can absolutely step in and tell them (based perhaps on skill roll checks) which one will actually work best based on the actual in-game situation at hand. Or, even if they decide to do different things, the GM will be the one determining the outcomes and effects that occur. Not the players. Cause player A in that case will be biased to make character B's choice fail or at least be less successful than character A's choice and vice versa. Again, never underestimate the need for players "to win".


You cannot allow the players to arbitrate things that occur between those player's characters. Just doesn't work. it's why the GM exists in the first place. There's a reason why many game systems called GMs "referees" back in the day. I'm sure there are some game systems where player based refereeing happens, but that's always going to be extremely dependent on the players being fair and reasonable and caring more about gameplay and fun than "making sure I win". I'm reasonably certain you're not going to see that work at a table where any of the players are involved in min/max behavior though, since those are antithetical concepts.

Same issue with resolving conflicts between PCs and the game environment/NPCs/whatever. That's the GM's job.

But sure. It's not necessarily the GMs job to arbitrate who should bring snacks to the game, and what sort of snacks they should be. Not sure anyone was thinking in that direction, but yeah.

[Quertus]

expecting Tanya with her bard to control the table dynamic is more than a touch unrealistic.

Geez, my life is a lie, I’m a brain in a jar, I get it already. Alternately, I had thought the days of being told by Playgrounders that what I’ve lived through was unrealistic / impossible were behind me.

It has been my experience that the person who knows the rules best can handle the rules; the person who can handle conflict resolution best can handle interpersonal conflicts, etc. And this is generally true regardless of their game status (or whether they’re even involved in the game to begin with, IME).


Let me re-quote this, for reference.

Oh, there’s probably gonna be lots of quoting.


Let's also not forget that you raised these examples in direct response to someone claiming that cheating by one player will tend to result in the cheating spreading to other players as a way of keeping up and/or balancing things out.

Ah, no. What they actually said was,



Some players prefer being "lucky" such that they never seem to roll below a 10, and always seem to get that natural 20 on important saves. They might say that calling them out reduces their fun, but their mathematical shift vs. a fair player's rolls means that other players need to start fudging too if they want to continue being effective. On player can very much set the tone for a table regardless of what other players might want.

Perfect information tactical runs aren't intrinsically bad. Neither is pseudo-isekai where the characters are clearly player avatars used to engage with canonical D&D lore. We have no reason to believe that these are true for all of Tal's group, so it's okay to call out one player trying to set that tone.
(Bolded for emphasis)

And that difference is important. What I was responding to was literally “cheat or be ineffective”, and my response was “lolwhat?!”, followed by examples of characters not needing to cheat, and <gasp> still being effective.

That’s the bar, don’t move the goalposts.


You declared this a "false premise", but then proceeded to list a set of examples to counter that premise that are so utterly absurd as to strain the mind to even take them seriously. Most of the time, people are cheating to give themselves an edge in some way and to be more capable than others, not because they are so incredibly outmatched by everyone around them that they feel they have to cheat just to be semi-relevant (and you even dismiss that in your examples too).

Me: "because the wizard will still totally out spell him,"

You literally said that you wouldn't care if the other guy cheated to roll a 20 on his spellcraft check because "my bonus is an order of magnitude higher than the DC. I try to find some excuse to take a 100-point penalty, and still succeed on a 1. I didn’t have to do anything to still have Quertus be effective, even with you cheating".

That's *not* you saying it doesn't matter that he cheats because your wizard will "still totally out spell him"?


I'm pointing out that your cases are absurd because they rest on the assumption that a) if someone cheats it's ok if they are totally gimped relative to the other characters and b) that this is somehow a "normal" situation in the first place. The answer to both is "no" btw. Yet, somehow, you're refusing to even acknowledge that this is what you actually said.


Maybe I totally misunderstood. But if that's the case, then by all means clarify your statement. Don't just say "I didn't say that". Because... um... you did.

Me: "I mean. I guess we could pretend that this just isn't a factor and that every player is perfect happy that their characters were basically just a spectator while, once again, the party powerhouse saved the day."

I'm getting it from your own post. I was specifically pointing out that even in your examples, the character who is cheating is *still* motivated to do so out of a need to compete with the other player characters. He's cheating because he's so weak compared to the other characters, that he has to do so just to be relevant. In that quote, I was examining the possible thought process that might have to occur for that not to be the case, and finding it wanting.

You aren't claiming that your examples were *not* ones in which the cheating character was outmatched in the situation at hand, right? I mean, you have a fighter going first (despite the cheating wizard guy rolling a 20 on initiative) and then "kills literally hundreds of foes before your Wizard gets a turn". Great. You turned the example around to show a gimped wizard. But, again, your example is absurd. And it still doesn't actually counter the starting position that players do this to compete with other players. if anything, your examples reinforce that claim.

I would have literally been ROFL at this, had the floor not been too… hazardous to allow such. You… really didn’t get that there were a total of three (and a half) characters in my three examples, did you? That the first two examples needn’t involve any new characters, and could just involve a total of two characters, did you? You really didn’t get that the Fighter from the first example could have been the Fighter in the second and third examples, or that the Wizard could have been the Wizard from the second example (and explicitly was the Wizard in the third example), did you?

And, as if that wasn’t funny enough, listening to you alternately describe different characters as “outmatched” or “totally gimped relative to the other characters” simply because they’re “outmatched in the situation at hand”, and claim that “balance is so incredibly out of whack” that you expect “once again, the party powerhouse saved the day”, when I’ve literally presented the opposite, characters who by their very nature share the spotlight, even if one player is constantly cheating their rolls. Laughing hurt so much! I don’t think I’ve been misunderstood so badly and so hilariously in quite a while.

Then you go and pull a double header. Contrary to the name, “Spellcraft” is not a “Craft” skill, and is generally not used to craft spells. (or to craft correct spellings of words, or whatever other misunderstanding could possibly have you translating making a Spellcraft skill check into “out spelling” someone)

Let me break it down for you, real simple:
There’s two characters: a Fighter, and a Wizard. If you play the Fighter and cheat, my Wizard will still be effective. If you play the Wizard and cheat, not-my Fighter will still be effective.

If you play a super more powerful not balanced Rogue and cheat, my Wizard and not-my Fighter will still be effective. If you play a “better at everything in every way” Rogue and cheat… maybe my Wizard and/or not-my Fighter might no longer be effective. But you’ll probably have encountered “balance to the table” issues long before you get to that point (unless you’re playing at a table so unconcernedd about “balance” that Sentient Potted Plants are all the rage… at which point, I don’t think anybody cares if they’re not effective).

That’s it. And that clears the bar of “one player cheats, yet the other characters are effective without cheating” that I was aiming to clear.






Well, that's mighty nice of you. Taking "pity" on a player who's character is so completely powerless in your game that you just, what? Pat him on the head and say "you do you", or something? How about addressing the actual problem at hand instead of just letting a player like that stew in his own juices, cheat to feel relevant, and then you just kinda laugh at him because he's still not terribly capable?

You're describing about the most toxic table environment I've ever heard of, and claiming that's "normal".

Sorry. I would *never* allow that to go on at my table. Ever. I get that you're being hyperbolic here, but the examples and cases you are reaching for, far from making a valid counterargument, are actually presenting even worse cases then we were originally talking about. I mean, sure, I think cheating on dice rolls is also minor compared to having a serial killer at the table, who's literally taking out players one by one or something ("Man. John's been in the bathroom a long time. And Susie never came back from that snack run to the kitchen. Oh well, let's keep paying..."). Clearly, we can all imagine scenarios where cheating at a game isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. But how about we imagine scenarios where there aren't these insane other conditions going on that make cheating seem minor? You know, like most gaming tables are going to actually be like.




It's not an abuse of GM powers to enforce the basic rules of the game that everyone is playing. And it certainly doesn't make the GM a "Tyrant" (even setting aside the correct definition of that term versus the popular misunderstanding of it which you seem to be using).

And yes. In your examples, do you think the player you are taking pity on is actually having fun? I doubt it seriously.

Look, given how badly you’ve misunderstood my examples, balance, cheating, which PC was(n’t) gimped, and, well, pretty much everything, I was prepared to just write all this off as equally meaningless (but much less funny). However, so as not to throw the baby out with the bath water, I figure I should ask: if you think you actually understand what I’m saying this time around, do you feel that there’s anything worth investigating wrt the cheating players whose PCs were… neither top nor bottom of the “optimization” or “effectiveness” boards… that I was describing, and whose existence did not result in the rest of the table cheating? Or, once you understand what I was actually saying, do you just withdraw these statements, too?

[JNAProductions]

"Cheating isn't an issue if one PC is so vastly more powerful than another that even cheating won't balance the playing field," isn't the slam-dunk argument you think it is, Quertus.

Cheating is an issue because it's a breach of trust. Full stop. Doesn't matter if it's just bringing them up to par or catapulting them past it.
One player character being massively more powerful is ALSO an issue, at least at most tables. It's not inherently a problem like cheating is, but generally speaking, most players want to feel like their characters are equals. Not in every conceivable way, but on the whole, at least.

Edit: Also, communication is a two-way street. If your examples aren't getting the point across, use better examples.

[False God]

Consider very carefully: the poster I was replying to indicated that the group should sacrifice their fun at the whim of one petty tyrant, which you accepted in silence, whereas you choose to take issue with my comment that it is better for the one to accept the fun of the many.

Are you really sure you want to die on that hill, of saying “how dare you be inconsiderate to one person’s fun - you should be inconsiderate to everyone’s fun instead!”? :smallamused:

So as not to have the GM abusing their power to get their Fun at the expense of the group, I strongly encourage GMs to err on the side of listening to their players, and optimizing the fun that the players have.

Please do not assume that I agree with some other post, because I disagreed with your post.

To that end, I am not particularly interested in arguing extremes or about petty tyrants taking over the game. If any single individual's feelings(please keep in mind I am using the word feelings here, not "fun") should not be discarded by the group, that applies equally to every member of the group. Timmy, Jimmy and Barb shouldn't ignore Sue, just as Sue, Barb and Timmy shouldn't ignore Jimmy, just as Timmy, Jimmy and Sue shouldn't ignore Barb. And round and round the circle goes, everyone accounting for everyone else, DM included.

If any individual at the table chooses to prioritize the fun of someone else or even everyone else, that's their decision and how they, at least in this moment, want to enjoy the game. But no individual at the table should be told by the group that their input is invalid.

And I'll add to finish, I am of course talking about reasonable feelings of rational participants at the table. Not extremes, not pettiness, not unreasonable ultimatums. Sue is terrified of spiders, so the DM decides not to include them in the game, and the party decides not to summon them, and maybe avoid drow in general. Jimmy feels uncomfortable when non-con is included, so it is not included. Barb is personally offended by the color blue and becomes unreasonably aggressive when blue things are mentioned, so Sue is respectfully told she cannot be accommodated and the rest of the group suggests she look elsewhere for a game, but she is still NOT told to sit down and shut up.

There is not much sense talking about folks like Sue. The answer is always the same: don't play with them, for all the right reasons. Talking about what is reasonable to accommodate, where the "fun" balance lies between Party & DM, and including and respecting every player, DM included, is absolutely a fine subject of discussion.

[Quertus]

"Cheating isn't an issue if one PC is so vastly more powerful than another that even cheating won't balance the playing field," isn't the slam-dunk argument you think it is, Quertus.

Cheating is an issue because it's a breach of trust. Full stop. Doesn't matter if it's just bringing them up to par or catapulting them past it.
One player character being massively more powerful is ALSO an issue, at least at most tables. It's not inherently a problem like cheating is, but generally speaking, most players want to feel like their characters are equals. Not in every conceivable way, but on the whole, at least.

Edit: Also, communication is a two-way street. If your examples aren't getting the point across, use better examples.

“Et tu Brute?” Which PC is “massively more powerful”, ”so vastly more powerful than another that even cheating won't balance the playing field”, the Fighter who doesn’t have Spellcraft, or the Wizard who can’t act until after the Fighter has wiped the board of fodder? Because those are the two PCs I’m talking about not needing to cheat in order to be effective. Who are, IMO, those “equals” you seem so concerned about.

I fully agree with you… Ah, Dagnabbit, here I go, complicating things again. My… better self… agrees vehemently with you that “breach of trust” is the big issue. But that problem (mostly) goes away in the case where you explicitly allow / actively encourage the behavior. The problem… changes… when you carefully study the cheating and the cheater, then act as a Business Analyst, doing a deep dive into root cause analysis, and offering more socially-acceptable alternatives to achieve the same ends. And, yes, I speak from experience on both - No “But that’s impossible” from the peanut gallery, please.

As for “better examples”? Honestly, I’ve gotten such a laugh out of people’s replies, I doubt it’s possible for me to have made better examples. However, if I foolishly prioritized “clarity” over “fun”, how would you have advised that version of myself to have explained differently the concept that two equals who have different areas of expertise can still be… word (don’t want to accidentally move goalposts here)… “effective”, even if the other person (or a 3rd party) cheats?


Please do not assume that I agree with some other post, because I disagreed with your post.

To that end, I am not particularly interested in arguing extremes or about petty tyrants taking over the game. If any single individual's feelings(please keep in mind I am using the word feelings here, not "fun") should not be discarded by the group, that applies equally to every member of the group. Timmy, Jimmy and Barb shouldn't ignore Sue, just as Sue, Barb and Timmy shouldn't ignore Jimmy, just as Timmy, Jimmy and Sue shouldn't ignore Barb. And round and round the circle goes, everyone accounting for everyone else, DM included.

If any individual at the table chooses to prioritize the fun of someone else or even everyone else, that's their decision and how they, at least in this moment, want to enjoy the game. But no individual at the table should be told by the group that their input is invalid.

And I'll add to finish, I am of course talking about reasonable feelings of rational participants at the table. Not extremes, not pettiness, not unreasonable ultimatums. Sue is terrified of spiders, so the DM decides not to include them in the game, and the party decides not to summon them, and maybe avoid drow in general. Jimmy feels uncomfortable when non-con is included, so it is not included. Barb is personally offended by the color blue and becomes unreasonably aggressive when blue things are mentioned, so Sue is respectfully told she cannot be accommodated and the rest of the group suggests she look elsewhere for a game, but she is still NOT told to sit down and shut up.

There is not much sense talking about folks like Sue. The answer is always the same: don't play with them, for all the right reasons. Talking about what is reasonable to accommodate, where the "fun" balance lies between Party & DM, and including and respecting every player, DM included, is absolutely a fine subject of discussion.

This is… the trickiest post I’ve replied to in this thread. I’ll preemptively admit that I’ll probably mess up my reply (ie, I reserve the right to take back anything I said or (especially) omitted as an oversimplification error).

So… you’ve done a really good job breaking things down. Yes, there’s “reasonable” and “unreasonable”. But that’s where things get truly complicated.

Because people are idiots.

That is, “Bob can’t have fun unless he cheats”. That’s a 100% valid statement… and likely a false one. “Quertus can’t have fun unless people aren’t cheating” is a valid statement… and was a true statement… until Quertus realized that it wasn’t.

Gah, that’s probably don’t make much sense. Let me… try again? Clarify? Ah, give case studies - that sounds effective.

Bob thinks he can’t have fun unless he cheats. Quertus thinks he can’t have fun unless no one cheats. And so we are at an impasse. Quertus doesn’t like false impasses. Quertus is an idiot, but eventually realizes “who cares if Bob cheats?”. Quertus studies Bob’s cheating, and eventually confronts Bob about it. Nonconfrontationally (y’all aren’t buying that, are you?), as a good Business Analyst (much more believable, right?). After discussing with Bob, Quertus susses out that Bob cheats because
The system is filled with instant SoD / SoL effects that render Bob unable to participate
Bob has an aversion to random losses to fickle Arangee
That’s how Bob was raised - it’s the only thing he knows
Bob is a compulsive liar

Quertus resolves this issue by
Convincing the GM to let people run multiple characters, so that Bob is always an active participant in the game
Introducing Bob to the joys of CaW
Showing Bob another way
Shipping Bob to the planet krypton

Ok, maybe that last one didn’t happen, but you get the idea?

Then, plenty of times, because good programmers are lazy, and Quertus just didn’t care (didn’t see how anyone’s fun was being negatively impacted), Quertus just let the “Bob” keep cheating. Sometimes with the group ribbing Bob about it (“how many 20s are on that die? (Hands Bob homemade stickers) Here’s a few more.”)

GM’s who just shoot down their players fun without doing that root cause analysis, by trampling over other people’s fun, are abusing their power, and don’t deserve to be in a position to make such decisions.

I mean, Wanda Maximov (however her name is spelled) kinda decided that her fun mattered more than other people’s fun, and look where that got her.

Thus, if, as GM, you aren’t going to take the time to safeguard your players’ fun the right way, you have to be willing to sacrifice your own fun by accepting your players’ fun, else it’s an abuse of power.

In short, neither “I need to cheat to have fun”, nor “I need you to not cheat for me to have fun” are valid, reasonable desires, the latter because the cheating happens for a reason, and you’re violating your own ethics regarding discarding another’s feelings by stamping it out without safeguarding and nurturing that fun first.

[False God]

This is… the trickiest post I’ve replied to in this thread. I’ll preemptively admit that I’ll probably mess up my reply (ie, I reserve the right to take back anything I said or (especially) omitted as an oversimplification error).

So… you’ve done a really good job breaking things down. Yes, there’s “reasonable” and “unreasonable”. But that’s where things get truly complicated.

Because people are idiots.

That is, “Bob can’t have fun unless he cheats”. That’s a 100% valid statement… and likely a false one. “Quertus can’t have fun unless people aren’t cheating” is a valid statement… and was a true statement… until Quertus realized that it wasn’t.
Bob's position is unreasonable. Cheating is, unless the game says otherwise(which is too rare to warrant discussion), against the rules. Violating not only the rules we have all agreed to follow to collectively enjoy an activity together (be it a TTRG or gambling or sports) but also the social contract. Bob's position is unreasonable. Therefore what do we say to Bob? "Bob, I think you'll need to find another group."

You not being able to have fun if there is any cheating could become problematic, depending on how you react to it. Sue had two problems: the color blue, and her reaction to it. Perhaps the Table could have avoided the color blue, but due to how common The-Color-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named-In-The-Presence-Of-Sue is, probably not, making avoiding blue an unreasonable request. Cheating on the other hand is something that the game itself doesn't want you to do, so it's something the Table can avoid much easier. The second issue is the reaction, Sue's hypothetical reaction was extreme and aggressive, presenting quite possibly an IRL problem for the real people at the table. (I've been there, it's scary.) So, if avoiding cheating is both an intended part of the game and at least assumed to be the default state of things, all that remains is your reaction to cheating when it happens. If you handle it like a reasonable, rational person, even up to the point of removing yourself from the game if the Table chooses to ignore or enable it, then the "problem" is self-solving. If the group responds in kind and handles it reasonably and rationally, the problem is self-solving.


Gah, that’s probably don’t make much sense. Let me… try again? Clarify? Ah, give case studies - that sounds effective.

Bob thinks he can’t have fun unless he cheats. Quertus thinks he can’t have fun unless no one cheats. And so we are at an impasse. Quertus doesn’t like false impasses. Quertus is an idiot, but eventually realizes “who cares if Bob cheats?”. Quertus studies Bob’s cheating, and eventually confronts Bob about it. Nonconfrontationally (y’all aren’t buying that, are you?), as a good Business Analyst (much more believable, right?). After discussing with Bob, Quertus susses out that Bob cheats because
The system is filled with instant SoD / SoL effects that render Bob unable to participate
Bob has an aversion to random losses to fickle Arangee
That’s how Bob was raised - it’s the only thing he knows
Bob is a compulsive liar

Quertus resolves this issue by
Convincing the GM to let people run multiple characters, so that Bob is always an active participant in the game
Introducing Bob to the joys of CaW
Showing Bob another way
Shipping Bob to the planet krypton

Ok, maybe that last one didn’t happen, but you get the idea?

Then, plenty of times, because good programmers are lazy, and Quertus just didn’t care (didn’t see how anyone’s fun was being negatively impacted), Quertus just let the “Bob” keep cheating. Sometimes with the group ribbing Bob about it (“how many 20s are on that die? (Hands Bob homemade stickers) Here’s a few more.”)

GM’s who just shoot down their players fun without doing that root cause analysis, by trampling over other people’s fun, are abusing their power, and don’t deserve to be in a position to make such decisions.
Like opinions, simply having fun does not make any individual's method of fun equally valid to others. Some people's fun can be actively harmful to others, generally reduce the fun (or worse) of other members of the group. We're not playing Calvinball here where the points don't matter and the rules are made up as we go. We have multi-hundred-page-long rulebooks we're all agreeing to abide by here. If we wanted to just run around in the woods in silly hats we could do that have far fewer concerns overall.

That is to say: Everyone should ensure everyone else is having fun. Everyone can do that by respecting everyone else's reasonable feelings on the matter. If everyone agrees that Bob cheating isn't a big deal and Bob having fun is more important, there's nothing wrong with that answer. Bob is still in the wrong here, but this hypothetical Table has decided it doesn't matter. It's important to distinguish times when an individual IS in the wrong in order to determine the answer. Bob's cheating could be highly problematic for another table, and Bob being excused from being in the wrong at Table A does not mean he's now in the right at Table A, or anywhere else.


I mean, Wanda Maximov (however her name is spelled) kinda decided that her fun mattered more than other people’s fun, and look where that got her.
Petty tyrants, murderers, and cartoonish villainy are probably not great examples.


Thus, if, as GM, you aren’t going to take the time to safeguard your players’ fun the right way, you have to be willing to sacrifice your own fun by accepting your players’ fun, else it’s an abuse of power.

In short, neither “I need to cheat to have fun”, nor “I need you to not cheat for me to have fun” are valid, reasonable desires, the latter because the cheating happens for a reason, and you’re violating your own ethics regarding discarding another’s feelings by stamping it out without safeguarding and nurturing that fun first.
Everything happens for a reason. Something having a reason isn't in-and-of itself good enough of an answer. Sue could have a reason for her reaction to blue that perfectly explains her behavior. That doesn't make the end result acceptable. Understanding Bob has deep-seating childhood trauma that leads him to cheat at dice is not the same as accepting Bob's cheating at dice. Bob's Table and Quertus could still very reasonably answered Bob's cheating with "Sorry Bob, either don't cheat or don't play here. Your call."

Because, and lets not forget this part: everyone's fun at the table is multi-faceted. Some of those facets are larger and more important to any individuals fun at the table. If Bob's cheating is so large and so important that he cannot have fun without it, then Bob is the one with the problem and the table does not need to accommodate him. Bob is quite literally saying "I agreed to play by these rules and with people also playing by the rules, except just kidding I had my fingers crossed!" Which is again, an unreasonable position to take regardless of Bob's rationale for it.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that Quertus not being able to have fun if anyone was cheating was an unreasonable position to take. It may be somewhat black and white, but it is in-line with the default position of the Rules and with the unless-otherwise-modified Social Contract(The Social Contract is, by default also in-line with the Rules) at any table. Without more details on the specific group, we should always start from the simplest assumption that whatever the group is doing is in-line with the Rules. To assume whatever the group is doing is outside of that leads us into the territory of edge-cases and statistically irrelevant issues. So, assuming the Group is in line with the Rules, Quertus' position is also in-line, while Bob's is not.

As always, your mileage at any table may vary. Ultimately IMO, Bob's cheating habit should be resolved to bring him in line with the Rules. Like Quertus, I would have much less fun if I knew Bob was exempted from one of the most basic elements of the game(fair dice rolling). The novelty and humor of it would wear thin quickly and I'd be looking for the Table to resolve and end it, or for me to leave if Bob's cheating and Bob's fun is more important than mine. And I know that reads selfishly but it finally circles back to my previous point.

If the Table disregards the reasonable feelings or the fun of a player this is a problem, it doesn't matter if this person is a Player or a DM, both of these "groups" are players of the same game with different responsibilities. The Table is not a Democracy nor is it a Monarchy, but is in fact something of the collectivist's dream. Several people sit down to do a thing and work together to ensure they are all accounted for. That reasonable, rational feelings are valued and that unreasonable, petty, tyrannical and violent things are not allowed to dominate. It doesn't always work, but that's the ideal goal. A reasonable accounting between reasonable people.

[Tanarii]

Cheating is an issue because it's a breach of trust. Full stop. Doesn't matter if it's just bringing them up to par or catapulting them past it.

This is the reason I won't play with DMs that fudge dice, even in my characters favor. They've breached trust. You can't know they won't also adjust monster stats on the fly or use quantum ogres / illusionism or any number of other things that boil down to player decisions having meaning.

[kyoryu]

Bob is completely allowed to say that he can't have fun unless he's allowed to cheat.

Everyone else is allowed to say that they aren't willing to play in that game, and that Bob should look elsewhere for a table.

Bob's preferences are valid. That doesn't mean he has the right to force them on the rest of the table.

[Talakeal]

For the record, Quertus’ “Bob” and my “Bob” are different people.

The thing about cheaters is that they usually think nobody else can tell, and will deny it and get mad if called on it, so actually having a conversation about it isn’t likely to happen .

[Tanarii]

The thing about cheaters is that they usually think nobody else can tell, and will deny it and get mad if called on it, so actually having a conversation about it isn’t likely to happen .
I dunno, depends on what exactly is being done. IMX for some things, they're just as likely to claim it's totally normal, or even that the cheating is better than the not cheating.

Players usually go the deny and get angry route when caught fudging dice, adding or subtracting hit or damage or hit points wrong, forgetting they're out of spell or magic item resources. But they'll defend not doing Ammo or encumbrance right as "it just isn't fun".

Some DMs will try to defend dice fudging, stats altering, and quantum ogring/illusionism as normal or even superior.

I can easily see a situation where players might defend intentionally looking up monster stats before or during a game, or even whole pre-published adventures, as either normal or fun. As opposed to denying and getting angry.

[Talakeal]

I dunno, depends on what exactly is being done. IMX for some things, they're just as likely to claim it's totally normal, or even that the cheating is better than the not cheating.

Players usually go the deny and get angry route when caught fudging dice, adding or subtracting hit or damage or hit points wrong, forgetting they're out of spell or magic item resources. But they'll defend not doing Ammo or encumbrance right as "it just isn't fun".

Some DMs will try to defend dice fudging, stats altering, and quantum ogring/illusionism as normal or even superior.

I can easily see a situation where players might defend intentionally looking up monster stats before or during a game, or even whole pre-published adventures, as either normal or fun. As opposed to denying and getting angry.

In my group its either fudging dice or not marking down resources. Sometimes knowingly making an illegal build choice. Reading the module before hand might be cheating, but I wouldn’t call looking in the monster manual.

[Talakeal]

The discussion of the Guy at the Gym fallacy currently going on in the 5E thread made me think about what Quertus is saying about cheating vs. optimization. The problem is that my system uses something akin to 5E bounded accuracy (although not nearly so binary and random) and the player who has, shall we say statistically impossible good luck, tends to roll a Nat 20 and beat out the specialists even when performing a skill for which she is untrained and they are a specialist.

[gbaji]

Some players prefer being "lucky" such that they never seem to roll below a 10, and always seem to get that natural 20 on important saves. They might say that calling them out reduces their fun, but their mathematical shift vs. a fair player's rolls means that other players need to start fudging too if they want to continue being effective. On player can very much set the tone for a table regardless of what other players might want.

There are two ways to interpret Anymage's position:

1. That when a player cheats every other player must also cheat to "continue being effective", regardless of the context or relative effectiveness of the characters if there was no cheating at all.

2. That when a player cheats in a way that makes another player's character feel less effective, that player may feel they need to cheat in order to "continue being effective".


And that difference is important. What I was responding to was literally “cheat or be ineffective”, and my response was “lolwhat?!”, followed by examples of characters not needing to cheat, and <gasp> still being effective.

That’s the bar, don’t move the goalposts.


You chose option number 1. Yes. You can claim that this is a "literal" interpretation of Anymage's post, but it's a pretty absurd literal interpretation. I think that most people, upon reading that post, assumed a context/condition where the PCs are relatively equal at the task at hand, and one player is cheating such that they are noticeably more effective than the other. The difference in effectiveness is presumably noticeable and entirely due to the cheating.

Option number 2 is the more reasonable assumption/interpretation. It actually assumes some reasonable game balance exists prior to the cheating and thus the cheating is "relevant".

The problem is that you have spun off on this frankly absurd tangent examining cases that fall so far outside the reasonably assumed conditions in the original statement as to render it a useless examination. Yes. Technically, your arguments are sound. They are also meaningless because they don't actually address the conditions everyone else is talking about. You are absolutely correct that in cases where someone's character is so much more capable at a specific task than another that the other player cheating at that task doesn't make any difference and therefore wont make the player of the more powerful character feel a need to cheat.

Great. That's not what anyone is talking about though.

Instead of only examining cases where the cheating didn't matter to the non-cheating player, why not examine the (presumably more relevant) cases where the cheating does matter?

Let's take two rogues. They have identical skills. One player cheats on his die rolls, always making their stealth skills, always evading damage, and always finding traps. The other fails at those things at the "correct" rate based on his actual skill (which is the same as the first player's character, but he's cheating). So the GM gives then a situation where the two of them have to both sneak past some guards, disarm some traps, and then open a gate in order to let the rest of the party in through a back way into the castle or something. Player A is cheating and makes all his rolls (and has since he's started playing the character). He's going to breeze through everything. Player B knows this, and also knows that since only his character will ever fail a die roll, it'll always be his fault if/when he fails. He knows that over time, the party will stop even sending his character on these sorts of missions because when he does it "we get caught, alarms sound, guards attack us, etc", but if they send the other party rogue to do it all alone, he always succeeds without problems.

This will absolutely lead to the second player cheating (or at least push them in that direction). Same deal with any two characters who are otherwise very similar on paper. The player who cheats on their fighters attack rolls and saving throws will be able to fight better and survive in heavy combat with less need for healing/assistance then the fighter of the player who does not cheat. So which fighter is the party going to rely on to stand toe to toe with the big bad?

Considering only cases where the cheating doesn't matter doesn't really help much.



And, as if that wasn’t funny enough, listening to you alternately describe different characters as “outmatched” or “totally gimped relative to the other characters” simply because they’re “outmatched in the situation at hand”, and claim that “balance is so incredibly out of whack” that you expect “once again, the party powerhouse saved the day”, when I’ve literally presented the opposite, characters who by their very nature share the spotlight, even if one player is constantly cheating their rolls. Laughing hurt so much! I don’t think I’ve been misunderstood so badly and so hilariously in quite a while.

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here. You literally presented only cases where one character was so much better at the "task at hand", that it didn't matter to them that the other character's player was cheating. I'm still searching for a case where you "literally presented the opposite". Instead of just claiming you did that, how about actually present that case?

You did present an "opposite" case where the class/action was different. But those were also the same "one character so much better" that the cheating didn't matter.

Again. Examine the cases where cheating matters instead of only those where it doesn't. Examine cases where two characters are on paper equally good at the task at hand, and then think about what happens if one character's player constantly cheats at the die rolls. That's the case that matters.


Let me break it down for you, real simple: There’s two characters: a Fighter, and a Wizard. If you play the Fighter and cheat, my Wizard will still be effective. If you play the Wizard and cheat, not-my Fighter will still be effective.

Great. Compare a case of two fighters where one is cheating. Or two wizards where one is cheating. Or two <any otherwise equally capable at the task at hand characters>. Why is this complicated for you?

That's like arguing that it doesn't matter that the other guy cheated by jumping the start light at the drag strip because he's driving a car so much slower than mine that he can't win anyway, and it's "balanced" because his car with its tiny/weak motor gets better gas mileage or something else unrelated to the "task at hand". No one cares about that.


That’s it. And that clears the bar of “one player cheats, yet the other characters are effective without cheating” that I was aiming to clear.

So you cleared a case that no one was talking about or even considering as relevant. Congratulations.

How about we discuss cases where one player cheats and it makes the other player's characters "less effective" as a result? Cause that would seem to be more relevant to the discussion at hand.




Look, given how badly you’ve misunderstood my examples, balance, cheating, which PC was(n’t) gimped, and, well, pretty much everything, I was prepared to just write all this off as equally meaningless (but much less funny). However, so as not to throw the baby out with the bath water, I figure I should ask: [I]if you think you actually understand what I’m saying this time around, do you feel that there’s anything worth investigating wrt the cheating players whose PCs were… neither top nor bottom of the “optimization” or “effectiveness” boards… that I was describing, and whose existence did not result in the rest of the table cheating? Or, once you understand what I was actually saying, do you just withdraw these statements, too?

Again. The presumed point of the exercise was to assume cases where cheating does affect relative PC power/outcome balance. Explicitly ignoring those and examining only cases where it does not somewhat misses the point. Yes. Congratulations. You've come to the conclusion that when something is done that doesn't affect you, you tend not to be bothered by it or take any action to correct/adjust for it. Um... Ok. Could have saved you a lot of time since that's somewhat assumed by everyone. Hence why we assume that when we talk about things like this, we're discussing cases where someone else's actions *do* affect you in some way. Right?

[Tanarii]

The discussion of the Guy at the Gym fallacy currently going on in the 5E thread made me think about what Quertus is saying about cheating vs. optimization. The problem is that my system uses something akin to 5E bounded accuracy (although not nearly so binary and random) and the player who has, shall we say statistically impossible good luck, tends to roll a Nat 20 and beat out the specialists even when performing a skill for which she is untrained and they are a specialist.
How often under your system do multiple characters get to try the same task one after the other, one chance each even tho there are no consequences for failure, until one succeeds for the entire group?

Or is it everyone rolls all at once, with any one person succeeding for the entire group?

Both of these are handle-able in a variety of ways, you just need to add some explicit assumptions / rules to cover them.

[Talakeal]

How often under your system do multiple characters get to try the same task one after the other, one chance each even tho there are no consequences for failure, until one succeeds for the entire group?

By RAW almost never.

They can either assist one another (which averages their rolls), or retry a previously failed task which either takes significantly longer or imposes a cumulative -5 penalty. The system uses degrees of failure, so doing this enough can potentially invoke consequences.

BUT when when player always rolls a "natural 20" followed by a "natural 17 to confirm the crit*" a -5 penalty or averaging the other persons dice roll is not enough to actually matter.





*Oddly, its always a 17 to confirm, not another natural 20. I guess she doesn't want to be too obvious?

[Quertus]

why not examine the (presumably more relevant) cases where the cheating does matter?

Because that would be stupid of me? And not at all productive to the conversation?

Because, the important part is, as you’ve just admitted, there are cases where the cheating doesn’t matter.

But, for the lols, let’s look at just how contrived the scenario must be for cheating to maybe matter (more on that below):



Let's take two rogues. They have identical skills.

I mean, wow. That’s a really, really niche example. Like, so niche it’d almost have to be intentional to be the case.

But fine. Let’s say you and I sat down at a table, and you convinced me that we’re playing twins, or alternate reality versions of the same character, just so that you can prove your point about cheating. And that you convinced me (me, mr. “I play Wizards”) to do that with us playing Rogues. [Also, you - the real you, not the imagined you who talked the imagined me into this hypothetical scenario - is just gonna have to deal with the fact that I have no clue how or to what level of optimization you prefer your Rogues built, so you’re just gonna have to deal with the fact that this is pretty much a “me” Rogue, at one particular level of Competence, despite the table in question having a broad range for its available balance. Sorry.]

Our mid-level Rogues join a campaign in progress. We start in downtime, with the GM giving us the simple objective “give yourselves a reason to leave town and go adventuring (with these guys)”. You go and raid the king’s treasury, cheating on all your rolls. I roll fair and square, and impregnate the princess. [Feel free to replace “king” with Duke/duchess/noble/high priest(ess)/whatever; I just like saying “princess”.] Curiously, I’m not feeling ineffective.

[Also, the GM warns you that, per the extended errata to the table PvP rules, by the end of the adventure, you won’t end up any richer than anyone else in the party by stealing, even if you don’t share. Gah, except… that’s what most people would infer from their words, which are different, and more like “the party will be equalized - not during, but between adventures”. Yeah, irl, I don’t have the skill to explain it in writing. I don’t know if you have the irl person skills for the imagined you in this scenario to catch how oddly the GM says this, or to infer anything from it, or from the fact that the GM doesn’t say anything to me about my Princess. Or even if you (or the imagined you running the Rogue) would care.]

The heat is on, so we beat a hasty retreat from town (“go on an adventure”), perhaps with pregnant princess in tow. The party decides to explore an ancient ruins (Because that’s what parties with redundant Rogues do, right?).

We’ve watched you cheat your rolls through the game so far, and so we, the party, therefore a) assign you to watch duty during those 15 minutes every 4 hours when the GM rolls for random encounters; b) place you on primary trap duties. It’s clear that, just as nobody at the table cares about your blatant cheating, nobody at the table cares about their blatant metagaming.

During the random encounters on the way there, your character is combat MVP, being a DPS sneak attack build powered by a player cheating all their rolls, and who is also awake and ready at the start of each encounter. One combat, the DMM Persist CoDzilla beat me wrt “effectiveness”; another, the Barbarian did; a third, it was the Mailman. But as a not completely inept Sneak Attack DPS Rogue, I’m consistently in 3rd place for combat effectiveness against the random wolves, Ogres, and giant slugs we encounter, out of our party of 10 (it’s a big table (where else would you play two identical skill Rogues?)). Your Rogue feels more effective (and, since player skills matter, going with, “you know how to play a Rogue better than I do, and can read the GM better for Rogue-related Combat actions”, you would have been anyway, even if you hadn’t been cheating on your rolls), but I don’t feel ineffective. I still feel effective (pretty danged effective, actually), even with my literal “protect the princess” handicap, your skill, and your cheating.

So then we get to the ruins.

We’re both “distraught” to learn that it’s a crypt, filled with traps and undead. Because this group goes meta a lot, the GM assures us that this isn’t that one famous, super-hard, super-deadly crypt, despite our feeling about the right level range for it, but something less deadly of his own devising.

Although you’re still on top against the rare creature living in the crypt, in combat against the undead, you fall to about 5th or 6th (depending on whether you kept or prematurely shared your ill-gotten gains) in effectiveness, despite cheating your rolls, to your chagrin [unless you kept the loot, pawned it for consumables, and wasted them on trivial fights against low-CR undead, I suppose]. I’m not only dead last, but between undead and fear effects, with my Princess to protect, I’m arguably a detriment to the group in some fights. But I still don’t feel ineffective - my presence has an impact on the story. And I’m getting to tell the stories of “the contrast between myself and my incredibly lucky alternate reality twin brother” and “that time I got the princess pregnant”, on top of the group stories of “explore the as-yet unnamed crypt”, and whatever larger story this is all part of (maybe our characters have gathered the full scoop, maybe the party is waiting until after this quest to trust us enough to clue us in. Shrug.).

I don’t know which of us gets “climbing” duties, or if we share them, alternating or both at the same time, or if we leave it to the Wizard to use Flight. Shrug.

Oh, and this crypt also has puzzles. Purely 100% player skill puzzles, no rolling allowed. I don’t know your skill with those, but I love and am usually pretty good at such things. So I’ll arbitrarily say that I’m contributing a lot to such things (even if some, as new players to the group, we lack the background to understand).

Even with a… reasonably well-built Rogue (again, no idea what optimization level you prefer on a Rogue build, so I’m going more with how I would build it, despite this table having a rather broad balance range, sorry) cheating his rolls, the sheer number and complexity of some of the traps, coupled with the near “Tucker’s Kobolds” “encouragement” for the party to rush into unsecured areas, and the ability for some traps to be triggered remotely / inability to disarm the traps without being in range of the effects, the party (your character included) has suffered some pain from the traps. Including some seemingly permanent NSJS effects. (I don’t know if you have the people skills to read me irl, but I recognize one of them as completely “by the books”, and am therefore on the peacekeeping, “has the GM’s back” side of any arguments about this that may or may not occur.)

Perhaps because of those penalties (but definitely (also) because of your cheating), the GM has handed you his custom “all 20s” d20 for a roll or two that the party really wanted you to succeed on.

With the penalties, your failures (much fewer than the GM probably expected), and you running out of consumables (again, just guessing your play style, made my build, sorry), and maybe irritated that, staying in the back, guarding our rear and the Princess, I have fewer curses, and am thus catching up to your combat and climbing performance, and you’re having to increasingly rely on me to open locks, all due to the unfairness of this scenario, you ask for “aid another” help with the traps.

In fairness, it hasn’t been all roses for me, as the princess and I, lacking the immediate support of the strongest Fighters up front with you, have really been putting a hurting on the party’s healing resources due to the party repeatedly getting outflanked. This build wasn’t meant to tank for a Princess and a Mailman.

Curiously, the Mailman joins the Princess and me in moving towards the front. And also rolls Aid Another. This is where we (and I’m going to arbitrarily say that that’s you, as we’re sharing spotlight on the players skills) notice that the Mailman is actually better built for this role than our Rogue (this was a perfectly effective party before we joined, after all.). When you bring this up, that’s when everything changes.

There’s something about the exchange that I miss, but, at this point, suddenly, your character is “in”. You even get handed a little pamphlet that explains a few things (like what this whole “equalization” business entails).

Well, now, that’s something. And I’m stuck with the puzzle of trying to figure out what the rules are, how one gets to be part of the “in” crowd. And whether I’ll be telling the story of “how I joined the in crowd”, or of “the contrast between myself and my incredibly lucky and more popular alternate reality twin brother”.

After this, you join me and the Princess in the back, letting the uncursed Mailman handle traps moving forward. With his higher stats, and his immediate action ability to block LoS, he’s very effective. Meanwhile, you start doing a better job than me at protecting the Princess. Which maybe leads to a great “teamwork” story, or maybe to a “the importance of Family” story (with the possible bittersweet addition that, reflecting upon the importance of family, maybe the Princess decides to move back in with her abusive parent(s) rather than run away with me like we’d planned).

We encounter 3 minibosses (1 living, 2 undead) and a boss. The living one, unsurprisingly, you top the charts; thanks to the curses on the primary Fighters, I actually rank 2nd. If you didn’t waste them earlier, and use some powerful consumables against them, you might rank 2nd or 3rd against one of the minibosses and the boss (and my character 3rd or 2nd, assuming we both act tactically optimally); otherwise, you’re 6th or 7th (and me last, if I don’t see what should be obvious). The last miniboss is more a puzzle monster in a puzzle room; how you rate is almost entirely up to player skill.

Also, there’s a couple pathetic mini mini bosses, that rely on a “X charges of incapacitating living beings”. You always make your save, adding +1 active participant. I brought 2 extra living beings (Princess and unborn son or daughter), adding +2 active beings (even if I’m not one of them) to the encounter.

——-

So, what part of that adventure do you think should have rendered me ineffective? What part of that adventure should have enticed me to cheat?

[icefractal]

Because, the important part is, as you’ve just admitted, there are cases where the cheating doesn’t matter.Wat? Why would that be the important part?

You know, by the logic of your story, I can say that all kinds of things don't matter.

The tier system - completely pointless and false, because a sufficiently optimized Monk can outperform an entire part of T1 casters (played "WotC intended" style), as we can see from the Elder Evils challenge. QED, no class is any stronger than any other.

Stats mattering - I can come up with a scenario where a character with all stats below 10 contributes more than a different character with all 18s, so I guess there's no reason for point buy or anything to exist, just roll or pick arbitrary numbers, doesn't matter.

Level mattering - Again, there are possible scenarios where a 1st level character accomplishes more than a 20th level one, so it shouldn't matter what level characters people bring or whether it's remotely the same level.

So, hmm, I guess Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit is actually a totally fine and valid party. TBF, that may be true for you, given the positive mentions of "Thor and a potted plant", but for many players, it isn't.

[JNAProductions]

Which is more realistic/likely to happen?

Two or more PCs contributing towards the same task, with both being competent at it.

Or

No PCs ever tread the same path, with them being so specialized in their niche that no amount of cheating can make up for it.

Two identical Rogues isn’t likely, I’ll grant that.
Two PCs both working towards the same goal by similar means, or even disparate means, seems pretty likely. As-in, happens all the time.

[kyoryu]

And ultimately it doesn't matter.

If a table or person isn't okay with cheating, they're not. Full stop. They don't have to prove that preference. Nobody has to prove why they don't care, either.

But they need to figure out what the table is going to do, and excuse themselves if they can't live with it.

[gbaji]

@Quertus. That's an incredible amount of nonsense text to avoid addressing the very simple concept that most of us learned at an early age that "cheating is wrong".

And way to completely miss the point. It's not about "two identical rogues", or two identical anything. It's about relative probabilities affecting relative outcomes. These are the core elements to virtually ever single gaming system ever created (that involve any sort of "by chance" outcome determination methodology). Cheating on the "by chance" determination is always wrong. Period. What part of this is complicated?

If the rolls don't matter then the skills the characters have don't matter. Their spells don't. Their items don't. Because apparently, in your world, no two characters have any even remotely close intersection of skills/abilities/items/whatever such that no one cheating on their die rolls will ever affect anyone else.

Sorry. I think that's just insane. If it doesn't matter, why are we bothering with the dice?

[Quertus]

And ultimately it doesn't matter.

If a table or person isn't okay with cheating, they're not. Full stop. They don't have to prove that preference. Nobody has to prove why they don't care, either.

But they need to figure out what the table is going to do, and excuse themselves if they can't live with it.

Agreed. With the caveat that one will have an easier time finding and remaining in games the larger the range of things that they can accept is.


Which is more realistic/likely to happen?

Two or more PCs contributing towards the same task, with both being competent at it.

Or

No PCs ever tread the same path, with them being so specialized in their niche that no amount of cheating can make up for it.

Two identical Rogues isn’t likely, I’ll grant that.
Two PCs both working towards the same goal by similar means, or even disparate means, seems pretty likely. As-in, happens all the time.

And when the classic Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Thief look at the epic challenge of the locked door, “all the way up there” (say, “retrieve a fragile egg from a nest at the top of a 50’ tall tree”), and “suddenly: blizzard!” (survive an unexpected 3-day blizzard when in the wilderness), they aren’t even remotely equal to one another at approaching that task. Kinda like my first example…


You know, by the logic of your story, I can say that all kinds of things don't matter.

The tier system - completely pointless and false, because a sufficiently optimized Monk can outperform an entire part of T1 casters (played "WotC intended" style), as we can see from the Elder Evils challenge. QED, no class is any stronger than any other.

Yup. Builds vary in effectiveness; classes, only in range and ease of likely potential.


Stats mattering - I can come up with a scenario where a character with all stats below 10 contributes more than a different character with all 18s, so I guess there's no reason for point buy or anything to exist, just roll or pick arbitrary numbers, doesn't matter.

Yes and no. Yes, stats (or the minuscule differences that the die rolls for random stats make in 3e) can be pretty irrelevant at many tables, especially at high level. However, the SAD Mailman having better stats was reason enough for them to beat the MAD Rogue twins. (It wasn’t the only reason, however)


Level mattering - Again, there are possible scenarios where a 1st level character accomplishes more than a 20th level one, so it shouldn't matter what level characters people bring or whether it's remotely the same level.

Well, yes. This isn’t the 3e forum - before 3e, it was pretty common for parties to contain (figuratively, if not literally) 1st level character adventuring alongside their 20th level counterparts. Or for GM’s to put in content (like those “player-skill-only” puzzles I mentioned) where the 1st level character could realistically whoop the butts of their 20th level counterparts.


So, hmm, I guess Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit is actually a totally fine and valid party. TBF, that may be true for you, given the positive mentions of "Thor and a potted plant",

Yup.


but for many players, it isn't.

They should probably look into that.


Wat? Why would that be the important part?

Because most of the game is that part. Maybe all of it.

But, if you have a cheater in your group, and don’t want them unfairly doing better when your identical characters do the same thing? Then - here’s a thought - don’t make identical characters, or don’t do the same thing. Problem solved. It’s not rocket science to make “I have a problem with the effects of cheating” not a problem. The ethical side is another matter. And, there, I completely agree with @kyoryu (above) and @JNAProductions (“Cheating is an issue because it's a breach of trust. Full stop.”).

[Talakeal]

But, if you have a cheater in your group, and don’t want them unfairly doing better when your identical characters do the same thing? Then - here’s a thought - don’t make identical characters, or don’t do the same thing. Problem solved. It’s not rocket science to make “I have a problem with the effects of cheating” not a problem. The ethical side is another matter. And, there, I completely agree with @kyoryu (above) and @JNAProductions (“Cheating is an issue because it's a breach of trust. Full stop.”).

For that to work, you have to intentionally build characters that don’t have any overlap AND expect the cheater to “stay in their lane”.

It also ignores the fact that most scenarios have multiple paths to success and expect the players to work together, combat being the big one.

[kyoryu]

Agreed. With the caveat that one will have an easier time finding and remaining in games the larger the range of things that they can accept is.

And you'll have an easier time finding groups if the things that you insist on are generally accepted by the community.

Throwing dice is generally not accepted. If you insist that you should be able to throw dice when you get mad, you'll have a hard time finding a table. It's not necessarily on the rest of the community to accept people that throw dice when they get mad. But if you find a table that's okay with it, cool.

Most people view cheating in the same category. It's a pretty assumed stance that you "dont' cheat", and I don't think it's an error on those people to not tolerate cheating.

Or, to reverse it, the person that insists on cheating will have a harder time finding and remaining in games if they increase their range of things that they can tolerate to include "not cheating".


For that to work, you have to intentionally build characters that don’t have any overlap AND expect the cheater to “stay in their lane”.

It also ignores the fact that most scenarios have multiple paths to success and expect the players to work together, combat being the big one.

For that to really really work, you basically have to promote "the decker problem" to being a principle of your game's design.

[Quertus]

For that to work, you have to intentionally build characters that don’t have any overlap AND expect the cheater to “stay in their lane”.

It also ignores the fact that most scenarios have multiple paths to success and expect the players to work together, combat being the big one.

Um… that’s not the way that works. The characters only have to have some areas that don’t overlap, OR the cheater to stay in lane.

Actually, it’s even easier than that: you just have to not pick the same actions as the cheater {Scrubbed}

Combat? Like, you play that identical Rogue, and cheat your Attack and Damage rolls? Ok, I UMD Benign Transposition and BFC effects. Who cares that you’re cheating? Or (as in my story), I accept only being in 3rd place out of 10 PCs, despite having the superior build (which, due to the cheater’s superior skills at playing the character, is where I would have been anyway, even if they hadn’t been cheating).


@Quertus. That's an incredible amount of nonsense text to avoid addressing the very simple concept that most of us learned at an early age that "cheating is wrong".

And way to completely miss the point.

Right back at you. Or, as you would say,

Great. That's not what anyone is talking about though.

{Scrubbed} Laughter is the best medicine (at least when it doesn’t threaten to make you ROFL on the stairs), and I’ve been running a fever since pretty much the start of our exchange, so I’d appreciate another good laugh, about as much as I’d appreciate intelligent, relevant discourse.

For reference, a few comments you made back when you still remembered what we were talking about, to refresh your memory, should you choose “relevance” over “humor”:



There are two ways to interpret Anymage's position:

1. That when a player cheats every other player must also cheat to "continue being effective", regardless of the context or relative effectiveness of the characters if there was no cheating at all.

2. That when a player cheats in a way that makes another player's character feel less effective, that player may feel they need to cheat in order to "continue being effective".


You are absolutely correct that in cases where someone's character is so much more capable at a specific task than another that the other player cheating at that task doesn't make any difference and therefore wont make the player of the more powerful character feel a need to cheat.


Instead of only examining cases where the cheating didn't matter to the non-cheating player, why not examine the (presumably more relevant) cases where the cheating does matter?


Let's take two rogues. They have identical skills.


This will absolutely lead to the second player cheating (or at least push them in that direction)


Examine the cases where cheating matters instead of only those where it doesn't. Examine cases where two characters are on paper equally good at the task at hand, and then think about what happens if one character's player constantly cheats at the die rolls. That's the case that matters.


Great. Compare a case of two fighters where one is cheating. Or two wizards where one is cheating. Or two <any otherwise equally capable at the task at hand characters>.


How about we discuss cases where one player cheats and it makes the other player's characters "less effective" as a result?


The presumed point of the exercise was to assume cases where cheating does affect relative PC power/outcome balance.


Let's also not forget that you raised these examples in direct response to someone claiming that cheating by one player will tend to result in the cheating spreading to other players as a way of keeping up and/or balancing things out. You declared this a "false premise"

So, in your own words,


How about we discuss cases where one player cheats and it makes the other player's characters "less effective" as a result?


Let's take two rogues. They have identical skills.


Cause that would seem to be more relevant to the discussion at hand.


Why is this complicated for you?

[Easy e]

Just to level set...... none of this matters..... so there is no need for us all to get worked up about it.

It is a game of make-believe where the main rule is the GM makes the rules and the players decide if they want to go along with it all.

Everything else is just window dressing.

[Talakeal]

Combat? Like, you play that identical Rogue, and cheat your Attack and Damage rolls? Ok, I UMD Benign Transposition and BFC effects. Who cares that you’re cheating? Or (as in my story), I accept only being in 3rd place out of 10 PCs, despite having the superior build (which, due to the cheater’s superior skills at playing the character, is where I would have been anyway, even if they hadn’t been cheating).

Why bother though? The cheater is going to fudge their hit and damage to do just enough to kill the monster and fudge their own HP total just enough to survive, so the outcome is a forgone conclusion regardless of what you do.

[Quertus]

Why bother though? The cheater is going to fudge their hit and damage to do just enough to kill the monster and fudge their own HP total just enough to survive, so the outcome is a forgone conclusion regardless of what you do.

Because it matters? Because I’m telling the story of “the time I made a Wall of Salt to save my pregnant Princess, and we drank margaritas with wall salt to celebrate afterwards”, rather than “the time I buried the Princess’s corpse along with our unborn child”? Because I’m telling the story of “the time I made a Wall of Iron in the snow, and we convinced the Troll to lick it”, rather than just the story of “the contrast between myself and my incredibly lucky alternate reality twin brother, whom we let solo every encounter while we sat back and ate popcorn”?

Ok, fine, I actually literally told the story of, “the Time my character sat back and ate popcorn during the boss fight”, as my commentary on one campaign. IME, one statistical anomaly is much less deserving of “popcorn” treatment, but you do you.

[icefractal]

... Until the troll just ripped their own tongue off and kicked all our asses in a fit of rage, because trolls regenerate. Then before regenerating, that troll came across the secret Tongue of Vecna, attached it, and became the new BBEG. However, this caused the GM to take the campaign in a grimdark direction that nobody liked, resulting in the entire group imploding. And the other players blamed me for it and got in a fistfight with me IRL, which tragically resulted in all our deaths when the balcony we were on collapsed. So cheating literally killed five people!

... In this improbable hypothetical chain of events. See, I can make those up too. 😝

[gbaji]

For that to work, you have to intentionally build characters that don’t have any overlap AND expect the cheater to “stay in their lane”.

It also ignores the fact that most scenarios have multiple paths to success and expect the players to work together, combat being the big one.

Exactly. I raised a hypothetical case of "two identical rogues", not because I'm assuming that a party would have two absolutely identical characters in it, but to show that when two characters do have similar (or even identical) odds of completing any given task in an adventure and one is cheating on the die rolls, it's unfair to the player of the other character.

Also, as has already been pointed out, this is not the D&D only forum. I play in a game that is purely skill based. Every character has a scan skill on their sheet. Every character has a search skill. Every character has a hide, a sneak, a climb, and a track skill. Every. Character. Some are better at those things than others based on past actions and experiences. Every character also has some form of magic. Some are better at it than others and the specific spells they can cast vary. Every character has weapons they carry and... you guessed it... different skills at using those weapons. They do not fit into completely sanitized categories of "this guy fights and that's all he does" and "this guy casts spells and that's all he does", and "this guy heals/protects and that's all he does" and "this guy sneaks, steals, and backstabs and that's all he does".

In a game like that, one player cheating is absolutely devastating to game balance at the table. Because relative skill at something is usually an indicator of not just age/experience, but also character focus. One player chose to focus his character on being good at sneaking, but at the expense of being good at say fighting. If the party fighter cheats on his rolls so that he's just as successful at sneaking but is also better at fighting, then that absolutely causes a problem. This is actually *worse* in skill buy systems than experience roll systems too. If my Shadowrun decker consistently manages to get just as many successes with his weapon as the street samurai who spent many more points on his weapon skills, that can be a problem. If I manage to succeed at 6 out of 6 dice every time, while you have 12 dice to get the same six successes consistently (assuming a standard 4 target roll here), you are probably going to feel a bit unhappy about that over time. You focused on your weapon skills so that you'd be better at it and sacrificed other things your character could have been good at (or even had the ability to do) as a consequence. Game balance is completely broken if the GM doesn't stop this.

And even in game systems where class/role is more defined and significant at determining what a given PC can do in a scenario, the question one has to ask is "if it doesn't actually matter to the players, then why is anyone cheating in the first place"? Clearly, to the guy cheating on the die rolls, it matters that he succeeds (even at something he's otherwise marginal at), or he wouldn't do it. Even if the characters themselves have clearly defined roles with little overlap, if character A is always successful at his role, but character B fails at his occasionally, and Player B realizes that it's because Player A is cheating, he's going to feel a pressure/need to cheat as well.


If you’re gonna get senile, and forget what we’re talking about, could you at least try to be funny about it? Laughter is the best medicine (at least when it doesn’t threaten to make you ROFL on the stairs), and I’ve been running a fever since pretty much the start of our exchange, so I’d appreciate another good laugh, about as much as I’d appreciate intelligent, relevant discourse.

For reference, a few comments you made back when you still remembered what we were talking about, to refresh your memory, should you choose “relevance” over “humor”:

...

So, in your own words,


I'll note that there is not a single point or argument being made by you here. What about my comments do you find relevant? What do you think about them? Do you agree or disagree? I'm not going to play 20 questions and speculate about what it is you're actually trying to say here and then flail about trying to respond while you just say "that's not what I said".

Um. You didn't actually say anything at all.


I think the problem here is that you are trying to contrive situations where cheating by one player doesn't matter to the other players. And yes, I believe that it's possible to do that in a hypothetical scenario. But at a real functional gaming table? I'm just not seeing it. It's just odd because the original argument was that one player cheating would tend to lead to other players cheating, but your counter more or less assumes that everyone is playing in an environment where no one cares if the other players cheat because they all have such narrow defined roles they are good at that all that means is they all collectively do better at the adventure. If no one is actually competing to see which character is "better" at something than the rest, then why is the one guy doing it in the first place? If we assume that is happening (and it's a given in the argument itself), and it's being allowed by the GM and the other players, then isn't it also reasonable to assume that this same behavior will spread to the other players as well?

Same deal. Cheating by one will spread to others. Slightly different rationale for it in your scenario, but it'll still happen. Because if all the players care about is "winning the scenario", and the GM allows them to cheat to do it, then why not all cheat? You've contrived a scenario where the other players wont care about cheating, but only because they care about collectively "winning" even more. I happen to think that's an even worse table environment than what most posters were envisioning, but that's just my opinion.

And in my Shadowrun example above, wouldn't the samurai also start cheating just to make sure he gets more successes than the decker? Yeah. I think he will. Even if he's using a more powerful weapon that does more base damage, he's still going to feel pressure to be "X amount better than the wimp with the data port in his head". You have to seriously contrive situations where players aren't going to feel this pressure in the game, and frankly I find those situations to be unrealistic depictions of actual player behavior. In your scenario *everyone* will cheat because everyone will feel the need to up their game to match relative levels of success at their given roles. It would be a complete mess.

And if the GM is ok with it? Sure. I suppose that's possible. But then I go back to my earlier question: Why bother with the dice? If the GM is just writing a monty haul style game where the players always win, and it's just a matter of collectively telling the story of "how" they win, then why not just do the storytelling and avoid bothering with stats, abilities, skills, weapons, spells, etc at all? Just let the players tell the GM what they do and how, and the GM tells them how awesomely they succeed? If we assume there's any point at all to having stuff written down on the character sheets, including game systems that tell us what the odds of success or failure are, and a game mechanic for actually determining success or failure (like say rolling dice), then it's actually important that we don't allow anyone to cheat on those rolls.

It's just such a fundamental aspect of game playing that it's hard to figure out why you are arguing in the first place.

[Reversefigure4]

Exactly. I raised a hypothetical case of "two identical rogues", not because I'm assuming that a party would have two absolutely identical characters in it, but to show that when two characters do have similar (or even identical) odds of completing any given task in an adventure and one is cheating on the die rolls, it's unfair to the player of the other character.

Also, as has already been pointed out, this is not the D&D only forum. I play in a game that is purely skill based. Every character has a scan skill on their sheet. Every character has a search skill. Every character has a hide, a sneak, a climb, and a track skill. Every. Character. Some are better at those things than others based on past actions and experiences. Every character also has some form of magic. Some are better at it than others and the specific spells they can cast vary. Every character has weapons they carry and... you guessed it... different skills at using those weapons.

I'm with you on this - 'cheating makes no difference' is a crazy concept.

Pretty much every system has some variant of expertise (be it with skills, class features, spells, etc), because that's how you separate the characters from each other to give them different capacities. And thus every system allows cheating. Unless you're playing some very basic systems (One where you have Lasers or Feelings as your only skills), or odd ones (Dread, where you pull from a Jenga tower), there's always going to be niche protection and character specialities.

Even if you play in one of Quertus' games where every character is apparently so min-maxed there's no difference between rolling 1s and 20s on the dice, you can still cheat. Your guy has +22 to Search, and I have +0? Guess what, you rolled a 1 and failed the DC25. But I rolled a 30 and succeeded - either by virtue of just cheating directly and claiming that's what I've added it up as; or by cheating in a slightly less blatant fashion and just adding +25 onto my Search skill by editing my character directly. If cheating makes no difference, why stop with the dice? What does it matter what I write on my character sheet if the table is happy for me to invent my math?

And if the table is happy for people to cheat, there's plenty of ways to do it openly. Infinite points budget until you get the character concept you're happy with. One of the dozens of systems with metapoints that allow you to reroll openly on things that are important to your character. Fail-forward comedy games like Toon where setbacks and losses are only a minor issue.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And if the table is happy for people to cheat[...]

If the table is happy for people to cheat...then they're not cheating. Because by definition, cheating is breaking the rules that the table set. The rules in the book don't matter at all unless that's what the table agreed to; if that's what they agreed to, then they're important because that's what they agreed to. Which could include "report any value you want for that check".

As a result, cheating is definitionally bad. Because if it's isn't bad...it's not cheating.

[gbaji]

I would also suggest that even in class/role based game systems, the sheer abundance of class balance threads out there on the internet, in which the smallest of changes to said balance is discussed and argued about to the nth degree, would tend to disprove Quertus's assertion.

Players, as a whole, do tend to care (a lot even) about even minor effects on class balance in play. If you've ever followed such things you will encounter endless debates about whether some change that allows classA to perform classB's primary thing at 25% capability should really be only 20% (or similar). The idea that players don't care about this is just plain unsupported by the evidence.

The only scenario where I could accept what Quertus is saying is one where the entire table is so much focused on winning the encounters that they don't care if players cheat to do it. And in that scenario, the likelihood that more than just one player will actually cheat is *higher* than in the scenarios most of us were envisioning, not lower. Given that we were starting with an examination of the assumption that allowing one player to cheat will tend to lead to other players cheating as well, providing a counter where literally everyone at the table is cheating actively and encouraging everyone else to do so as well so as to maximize their odds of "success", is not a terribly good counter at all.

It's the same level of absurdity as concluding that the bad guys can't kill all the villagers if they're already dead, so let's just kill them ourselves! I mean, yes, you will technically succeed at the stated objective of "preventing the bad guys from killing the villagers" that you were tasked with, but... um... you may have missed the point of the exercise.

[NichG]

If the table is happy for people to cheat...then they're not cheating. Because by definition, cheating is breaking the rules that the table set. The rules in the book don't matter at all unless that's what the table agreed to; if that's what they agreed to, then they're important because that's what they agreed to. Which could include "report any value you want for that check".

As a result, cheating is definitionally bad. Because if it's isn't bad...it's not cheating.

It's only that simple for table cultures that have very flat, binary priority structures like 'the important thing is to play by these rules, everything else is up to you'.

You could absolutely have a table culture where there's a certain priority given to following the rules of the game, but a higher priority given to for example ensuring that the group is having fun. Or even a priority given to taking care of your own needs in order to be enjoying the game. You could as well have table cultures where certain things are okay but only if hidden, where e.g. people don't care if someone fudges a roll but they don't want to be explicitly aware of which rolls were fudged and which one were not (or they don't want 'I'm going to fudge this is that okay?' sorts of meta-discussions to happen).

Cheating is still a useful term for those tables in that it refers to cases in which a more important priority takes precedence over the rules of the game, and where that is resolved by individual hidden action in choosing to break those (lower) rules. Especially if the things that are defined at that higher level don't take the form of rules or protocols, but rather are stated as priorities and values which those at the table are responsible for using their own judgment to uphold.

[Reversefigure4]

If the table is happy for people to cheat...then they're not cheating. Because by definition, cheating is breaking the rules that the table set. The rules in the book don't matter at all unless that's what the table agreed to; if that's what they agreed to, then they're important because that's what they agreed to. Which could include "report any value you want for that check".

I've never played at - or seen - a table where "report any value of success you want anytime" was a standard thing. Why even bother using dice? A systemless or collaborative storytelling game is going to be better, since the table agrees the dice rolls are irrelevant.

And I've certainly never seen one where some players are bound by the dice results, while other players are allowed to ignore them at will. It's hard to imagine that not causing problems, or any group agreeing that the rules should only apply to half of them.

[gbaji]

You could absolutely have a table culture where there's a certain priority given to following the rules of the game, but a higher priority given to for example ensuring that the group is having fun. Or even a priority given to taking care of your own needs in order to be enjoying the game. You could as well have table cultures where certain things are okay but only if hidden, where e.g. people don't care if someone fudges a roll but they don't want to be explicitly aware of which rolls were fudged and which one were not (or they don't want 'I'm going to fudge this is that okay?' sorts of meta-discussions to happen).

First off. I absolutely don't think that this ever really results in more "fun" by anyone. I think that some players (usually younger players) think so, but in the long run, a victory gained by cheating/fudging/whatever is not really "fun". You know you only succeeded because of the cheating. You can lie to other's but you can't lie to yourself. And ultimately, any enjoyment achieved by "success" at the gaming table will always be diminished by the knowledge that it wasn't earned fairly and by the rules.

Secondly. Just to bring this back to the original statement about players cheating on die rolls at gaming tables, can we agree that if this is the case, that one player "cheating" will lead to other players doing so as well? I mean, if it's understood that it's ok to fudge rolls as long as you aren't blatant about it, presumably the whole table knows this (or it's not a "table culture"), and presumably other players will cheat as well.


I've never played at - or seen - a table where "report any value of success you want anytime" was a standard thing. Why even bother using dice? A systemless or collaborative storytelling game is going to be better, since the table agrees the dice rolls are irrelevant.

And I've certainly never seen one some players are bound by the dice results, while other players are allowed to ignore them at will. It's hard to imagine that not causing problems, or any group agreeing that the rules should only apply to half of them.

And again. If we're to bring this back to the question of "does cheating by one player spread to cheating by others", if this was actually in effect (and I agree that I've never seen it either, nor do I think it would be a stable table condition), it would absolutely lead to others engaging in the same behavior as well. As you say, even if the table rules allow for it, you're not going to see a case where one player cheats and the others don't. They're all going to do it because it's allowed.

I honestly suspect that this is not really a thing that happens, but that some players may imagine it is in order to justify their own cheating (eg: "It's ok for me to fudge this die roll. I'm sure everyone does it, but just doesn't speak openly about it"). Um... no. It's not ok to do that, and no, everyone else isn't doing it. It's just you cheating. Stop doing that.

Having said that, I'm personally of the opinion that the GM can fudge outcomes of die rolls (that failed skill roll may not be the total disaster that it could have been), but even that is not without controversy. Players straight up cheating on die rolls, or pretending they have skill levels they don't, magically "forgetting" to mark off spell use, item triggers/uses, etc? Totally out of bounds IMO. Again though, this relies on players and GM having a strong trust relationship such that the players know the GM will fairly assess the situation at hand and fairly assess the outcome of their die rolls, such that they don't feel the need to cheat on them in order to ensure success (or prevent failure). And while not every table is going to have that dynamic in place, I feel that cheating as a work around is never going to make things better. It will only solidify a "the players versus the GM" mentality that can be incredibly unhealthy for a table to have ("I have to cheat because the GM wont let me succeed otherwise", followed by the GM making things harder because the players sailed through the last "tough" encounter, forcing other players to feel like they have to cheat, pushing the difficulty further, and we just spin around and round a downward spiral from there).

Yeah. Such behavior has serious adverse effects on a table, even if the player doesn't think it will. And those effects will tend to spread and get worse over time. Better to nip it in the bud immediately.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've never played at - or seen - a table where "report any value of success you want anytime" was a standard thing. Why even bother using dice? A systemless or collaborative storytelling game is going to be better, since the table agrees the dice rolls are irrelevant.

And I've certainly never seen one some players are bound by the dice results, while other players are allowed to ignore them at will. It's hard to imagine that not causing problems, or any group agreeing that the rules should only apply to half of them.

I know of tables run by forumites where the ability score generation is "pick 6 numbers above 3 and below 20". You can't actually cheat at that by picking, say, all 20s. Sure, it's not "report any value you want". That was thrown in as an extreme example to show that the table rules can literally be anything. And if you're following the table rules, you're not cheating. No matter what the ostensible game system you're running says. However, it's not a kind of game I'd like to play.

And I agree with the second...with one salient exception. DnD actually codifies that the DM has no system-provided rules. At all. At most they have rules that the table asks them to apply. And at many tables, yes, the die results only apply to the players. DMs are free to ignore them at will without cheating at that table. Instead, the DM is held to rules based on keeping the players' trust and attention. Is that contentious and should you figure out what rules apply to what people at each table? Yes. But a DM (at such a table) ignoring a die roll (or "fudging") isn't cheating. They're playing the game the table agreed on. And, in fact, the game the system expects you to play in large part. Sure, most such DMs don't exercise this privilege much, but they always retain the power. And the only review possible is for the table to change the rules (after which a DM who ignores dice rolls would be cheating).

My point was that cheating is bad. Breaking the table's rules is always, by definition, bad. Breaking the system's rules...meh, that depends on the table. And if people are throwing around accusations of cheating, one of a few things is going on:
1. there is no meeting of the minds as to what the table's actual rules are. --> that consensus should be sought OOC; if it can't be reached, someone needs to leave or the game needs to end.
2. someone is deploying accusations tactically (to win arguments/force getting their way) despite there being a consensus and everyone is actually playing within that consensus --> That person shouldn't do that.
3. someone is breaching the consensus knowingly. --> that person shouldn't do that.

In case 1, no one is at fault. Misunderstandings and gaps in understanding occur. So you all talk about it rationally like adults and come to consensus. If you can't, someone (or someones) needs to leave or the game can't continue. This may involve compromise. However, if you compromise and then keep accusing people of cheating despite them playing within the established consensus, you're in case 2.

Cases 2 and 3 are people acting badly.

[NichG]

First off. I absolutely don't think that this ever really results in more "fun" by anyone. I think that some players (usually younger players) think so, but in the long run, a victory gained by cheating/fudging/whatever is not really "fun". You know you only succeeded because of the cheating. You can lie to other's but you can't lie to yourself. And ultimately, any enjoyment achieved by "success" at the gaming table will always be diminished by the knowledge that it wasn't earned fairly and by the rules.

Secondly. Just to bring this back to the original statement about players cheating on die rolls at gaming tables, can we agree that if this is the case, that one player "cheating" will lead to other players doing so as well? I mean, if it's understood that it's ok to fudge rolls as long as you aren't blatant about it, presumably the whole table knows this (or it's not a "table culture"), and presumably other players will cheat as well.


I mean, I've been at a few such tables and at the request of one of my players, I ran one of my games this way as well. None of those particular game styles was competitive/challenge-centric, so things like 'gaining victory or success' were less of an issue than in those cases moderating how players felt with regards to the mood of the game and game events. In one case, the GM had moderate depression and I think based in part on their own experiences of being sometimes just sent into a spiral by things that on a good day they would take in stride, they took the view that if someone really really needed a nat 20, even a fake one, to help salvage their mood - go for it. Another example though not so much explicit dice fudging was a game of Paranoia where GM said something along the lines of 'since its Paranoia, if you can successfully bull**** me about something, well done, fair play'.

And as for whether cheating 'spread' at those tables... Not as far as I could tell in the game I ran where I explicitly okayed it 'if you need to'. I think I got taken up on it maybe once or twice in the entire campaign. In the stuff I was a player in, harder for me to know (also complicated by the fact that the one extended game with this sort of table culture had serious 4th wall breaking shenanigans going on, and stuff like 'metagaming OOC knowledge' had correspondences to in-character plot stuff; additionally there were actual in-game abilities that would legitimately let someone reach out and change the value of a roll and you couldn't necessarily know if someone had those abilities or not)

On the other side of things, I've absolutely had players who got into arms races with each-other or did 'we're not supposed to PvP but have some passive aggressive PvP' or other such things, but in completely rules-legal ways. And that kind of behavior did tend to spread.

I've also had the occasional 'too lucky to believe' player who was probably drop-rolling or using unbalanced dice, and since it was never a PvP situation I generally just went with it and indulged e.g. the ridiculously high rolls in a roll-and-keep exploding dice system with equally gonzo reactions from the world. The player seemed to have fun, and the behavior didn't particularly spread or result in anything much but some ribbing from the other players.

Anyhow, if you want to say 'it wouldn't be fun for me' or 'I would not like to be at such tables', fair enough. But I don't think you have the basis to confidently tell someone else whether or not something will be fun for them, especially in opposition to what that person might be directly telling you. There are lots of different kinds of aesthetics people play games for and lots of different ways to play.

[gbaji]

I know of tables run by forumites where the ability score generation is "pick 6 numbers above 3 and below 20". You can't actually cheat at that by picking, say, all 20s. Sure, it's not "report any value you want". That was thrown in as an extreme example to show that the table rules can literally be anything. And if you're following the table rules, you're not cheating. No matter what the ostensible game system you're running says. However, it's not a kind of game I'd like to play.

Sure. If that's the agreed upon rules for choosing stats in the game, then that's what's agreed on. I will note, however, that in a similar vein to the die roll cheating issue, one player engaging in min/max behavior at such a table will also tend to lead towards more min/maxing by other players. If the other players are all picking reasonable stats for their characters based on their backgrounds, intended capabilities, etc, and being mindful of ensuring that they are good at some things and not so good at others as a natural part of balance, and some guy walks in and all his characters have 20s across the board because "why not be the best I can be?", it's going to tend to put a damper on things.

So yeah. Also not a game method I'd use either. I'm always hopeful that the players will play in the most altruistic manner possible, but it's also a good idea to avoid game mechanics that trend towards rewarding abuse, since over time, they will tend to be abused.

But yeah. That's not technically "cheating" either.



And I agree with the second...with one salient exception. DnD actually codifies that the DM has no system-provided rules. At all. At most they have rules that the table asks them to apply. And at many tables, yes, the die results only apply to the players. DMs are free to ignore them at will without cheating at that table. Instead, the DM is held to rules based on keeping the players' trust and attention. Is that contentious and should you figure out what rules apply to what people at each table? Yes. But a DM (at such a table) ignoring a die roll (or "fudging") isn't cheating. They're playing the game the table agreed on. And, in fact, the game the system expects you to play in large part. Sure, most such DMs don't exercise this privilege much, but they always retain the power. And the only review possible is for the table to change the rules (after which a DM who ignores dice rolls would be cheating).

Absolutely. The GM has the ultimate responsibility to make the game fun, challenging, and engaging for the players. Being consistent is obviously a component of this, so fudging by the GM should be rare and almost always done in ways that are minor adjustments to outcomes and not major "I'm just going to make you fail for giggles" kind of things. It should only ever be done as an element of game balance and not as a player action nullification tool. And it should overwhelmingly be used in the favor of the PCs and not the other way around. Deciding that the next wave of NPCs you had queued up to run into the room to help out in the battle really didn't exist at all because the party is already having just the right amount of difficultly and having a great time, isn't "cheating" by the GM. It's "dynamic balancing". And yeah, deciding that the third bad guy taking a swing at the PC who fumbled and is helpless this round missed because the other two already hit and a third will cause the PC to just straight up die due to one bad die roll on his part? Not a bad choice to make. You got the dramatic moment. The PC suffered badly for the unlucky die roll. Let him play through the struggle to recover, heal, get back up, and continue the fight.

I always err on the side of not making random die rolls be the primary determinant of any broad outcome. Specific details along the way? Absolutely. And yeah, if the die roll honestly counters some grand/brave/whatever action by the PC? It happens. Pretty much the only thing I outright fake die rolls for (and this is super rare) is situations that would otherwise result in meaningless random death to a character purely due to die rolls. I hate that as a player, so I don't subject my players to it as a GM. Now, if you do something absolutely foolish, after having been warned that "this is absolutely foolish and could likely result in you dying", I feel absolutely zero obligation to let your character off the hook for the honest die rolled outcome. You can't allow players to believe that if they put the you in a situation of "I win, or I die", you will always let them live/win. Nope. You went in knowing the risks and you chose to take them. Them's the breaks.

Of course, if they do that and the die rolls do shine on them, they get to win too.

[gbaji]

I mean, I've been at a few such tables and at the request of one of my players, I ran one of my games this way as well. None of those particular game styles was competitive/challenge-centric, so things like 'gaining victory or success' were less of an issue than in those cases moderating how players felt with regards to the mood of the game and game events. In one case, the GM had moderate depression and I think based in part on their own experiences of being sometimes just sent into a spiral by things that on a good day they would take in stride, they took the view that if someone really really needed a nat 20, even a fake one, to help salvage their mood - go for it. Another example though not so much explicit dice fudging was a game of Paranoia where GM said something along the lines of 'since its Paranoia, if you can successfully bull**** me about something, well done, fair play'.

Sure. I can see handwaving outcomes in a non-competitive game. I'm not sure why someone would feel the need to "roll better" if the situation is, indeed, non-competitive in the first place though. Having said that (and I don't actually remember what game this was in), I do recall one situation where a player was rolling something that was more or less irrelevant, with a nearly guaranteed success. One of those "eh, roll just to say we rolled" kind of situations and he rolled so horribly poorly (like 6 ones on 6 dice or something like that), that the entire table basically just waved our hands around and said "roll again" and "take a mulligan" or other such things. So yeah, I can see some situations where the die rolls can just be waved away.

I'm kinda assuming we're not talking about situations like that, though. I'm also not sure it actually makes people feel better about themselves to roll a natural 20 when they didn't actually roll one. Dunno. Without meandering too far down the rabbit hole of game-table psychology, that feels to me like enabling the very sort of (really bad) behavioral reward system that likely led to that person's happiness being based on the success of a single die roll in the first place. Obviously we can't (and maybe we shouldn't) always "fix" player's problems at the game table. But I don't think you're helping that player in the long run by doing that. Again. I make a distinction between GM action to prevent poor outcomes for PCs (and certainly taking a players current state of mind/emotion into account can be part of that), and just handing players success because they ask for it and will feel bad about themselves if they don't get it. That's a form of emotional blackmail IMO and can be more damaging (to themselves and everyone at the table) than anything else.


Anyhow, if you want to say 'it wouldn't be fun for me' or 'I would not like to be at such tables', fair enough. But I don't think you have the basis to confidently tell someone else whether or not something will be fun for them, especially in opposition to what that person might be directly telling you. There are lots of different kinds of aesthetics people play games for and lots of different ways to play.

Sure. But we're not talking about "different games and different ways to play". We're talking about an assumed group game where the players have agreed to a set of rules and a player decides that it's more "fun" for them to cheat. Obviously, if the whole group is just hanging out and having fun and the rolls don't really matter to them, then that's one thing. But I think the entire discussion somewhat assumes that's not the case. Certainly, the element I was talking about (cheating by one player spreading to others) assumes that we already accept that "cheating is bad" in the game we're playing. And yes, in that situation I strongly feel that even if the player cheating thinks they are deriving more fun by cheating, I don't think they really are. Not in the long run. Because on some level, they know that they didn't really succeed/win/whatever. You can lie to others, but you can't lie to yourself. All successes via cheating in such a game become tainted in that case and therefore meaningless.

I'm just coming from a point of view that roleplaying games can be very good and "safe" places for players to experience how to deal with success and failure alike. To the degree that such things can be learning and growing experiences, I think that presenting players with problems to solve and rational consistent methodologies to determine the outcomes of their decisions is a good thing. I think that players can learn group communication and decision making skills along the way as well. I think that all of these are things that are very helpful to learn and will serve them well in "real life". Obviously, having fun along the way is a great thing too.

I just think that the greatest amount of fun is had when players achieve success through making good decisions, working with the other players, and then executing their plans well. And yeah, the die rolls show them that not everything in life is guaranteed or goes according to plan. Learning how to deal with that is yet another way in which roleplaying games are great learning and development tools. Actually, games in general have this feature. We learn and follow the rules of card games, not just out of arbitrary adherence to the rules, but because it teaches us that rules exist and learning how to succeed while following them is important (arguably possibly the most important lesson anyone can ever learn in their life). We could cheat, and certainly "win" in the short term, but in the long run, we're only cheating ourselves. Roleplaying games just have some added dynamics to them is all.

Yeah yeah. It's just a game. Whatever. And sometimes that is all it is. But I think games, and roleplaying games in particular, have the potential to be much more. Don't have to be, of course. But they can be. And, ironically, the players that arrive at a table with the worst habits, and the worst emotional problems, and the worst gameplay, are often the players that "need" the stability of consistent rules, fair judgements, and a GM that isn't going to just sway with the wind if they throw a tantrum or something. Just as building a trust dynamic between players and GMs is important for general play success and enjoyment, it's even more critically important in those situations and for those players. I'm not a therapist, but I play the role of GM once a week. If I can do something positive for someone, by the mere application of a simple "everyone follows the same rules" methodology, then that's enough for me.

[Anymage]

And as for whether cheating 'spread' at those tables... Not as far as I could tell in the game I ran where I explicitly okayed it 'if you need to'. I think I got taken up on it maybe once or twice in the entire campaign. In the stuff I was a player in, harder for me to know (also complicated by the fact that the one extended game with this sort of table culture had serious 4th wall breaking shenanigans going on, and stuff like 'metagaming OOC knowledge' had correspondences to in-character plot stuff; additionally there were actual in-game abilities that would legitimately let someone reach out and change the value of a roll and you couldn't necessarily know if someone had those abilities or not)

On the other side of things, I've absolutely had players who got into arms races with each-other or did 'we're not supposed to PvP but have some passive aggressive PvP' or other such things, but in completely rules-legal ways. And that kind of behavior did tend to spread.

If an option is available but it's practically never exercised, it doesn't meaningfully have the chance to spread and impact table culture. Your note on passive aggressive PvP shows that certain kinds of behavior are prone to spreading.

To tie this back into my original post that started this cheating tangent and the original topic, certain behaviors have a tendency to spread and influence table culture even if the rest of the players would prefer otherwise. Being aware what other players like - including ones who are quieter and/or don't like making waves - is worthwhile. And with certain things like cheating or PvP or even just regularly breaking the action to look up game info, there are general best practices to the point that it's fair to express disapproval unless the whole group has expressly and enthusiastically bought in.

[NichG]

Sure. I can see handwaving outcomes in a non-competitive game. I'm not sure why someone would feel the need to "roll better" if the situation is, indeed, non-competitive in the first place though. Having said that (and I don't actually remember what game this was in), I do recall one situation where a player was rolling something that was more or less irrelevant, with a nearly guaranteed success. One of those "eh, roll just to say we rolled" kind of situations and he rolled so horribly poorly (like 6 ones on 6 dice or something like that), that the entire table basically just waved our hands around and said "roll again" and "take a mulligan" or other such things. So yeah, I can see some situations where the die rolls can just be waved away.

I'm kinda assuming we're not talking about situations like that, though. I'm also not sure it actually makes people feel better about themselves to roll a natural 20 when they didn't actually roll one. Dunno. Without meandering too far down the rabbit hole of game-table psychology, that feels to me like enabling the very sort of (really bad) behavioral reward system that likely led to that person's happiness being based on the success of a single die roll in the first place. Obviously we can't (and maybe we shouldn't) always "fix" player's problems at the game table. But I don't think you're helping that player in the long run by doing that. Again. I make a distinction between GM action to prevent poor outcomes for PCs (and certainly taking a players current state of mind/emotion into account can be part of that), and just handing players success because they ask for it and will feel bad about themselves if they don't get it. That's a form of emotional blackmail IMO and can be more damaging (to themselves and everyone at the table) than anything else.


Fort save against a death effect for example. Skill check to diffuse an artifact about to explode and destroy the town the PCs grew up in for another example. On a good day, someone might be like 'bring it!'. On a bad day where things have already been going poorly, they might determine for themselves 'if this goes poorly, I'm probably just going to detach from the game'. Basically, the kind of situation where normally the stakes introduced by the GM would be okay, but due to something that player is aware of which the GM isn't, those stakes were not okay. So the player can use their judgment of their own mental state and relationship with the game to choose whether to override (and by doing it via fudging and talking with the GM later, they can prevent it from becoming a big deal or OOC discussion when they know this is just their how their mood is at the time).

Again, this concept of using the game to 'earn success' is only one particular aesthetic of play, and there's a lot more out there.



Sure. But we're not talking about "different games and different ways to play". We're talking about an assumed group game where the players have agreed to a set of rules and a player decides that it's more "fun" for them to cheat. Obviously, if the whole group is just hanging out and having fun and the rolls don't really matter to them, then that's one thing. But I think the entire discussion somewhat assumes that's not the case. Certainly, the element I was talking about (cheating by one player spreading to others) assumes that we already accept that "cheating is bad" in the game we're playing. And yes, in that situation I strongly feel that even if the player cheating thinks they are deriving more fun by cheating, I don't think they really are. Not in the long run. Because on some level, they know that they didn't really succeed/win/whatever. You can lie to others, but you can't lie to yourself. All successes via cheating in such a game become tainted in that case and therefore meaningless.


In my post that you originally responded to (which itself was in response to PhoenixPhyre's - paraphrased - all cheating is by definition in violation of the social contract post), I explicitly said I was talking about a table culture set around a structure of priorities rather than a set of protocols or explicit rules. So I am absolutely talking about 'different ways to play' here. That's my point, that basically these absolute positions come with a lot of implicit assumptions about what gaming is that simply are not true at every table. So no, I do not take as assumption that a player is violating the table culture by cheating, or that we must accept that 'cheating is bad'. I'm arguing that those assumptions do not actually fit every table, so arguments that proceed from them and try to claim absolutes like 'cheating is always bad because its dishonest, and if it isn't dishonest it isn't cheating' are not as universal as they may sound.

Basically don't mistake your personal preferences for universal truth. That's all.

[kyoryu]

In my post that you originally responded to (which itself was in response to PhoenixPhyre's - paraphrased - all cheating is by definition in violation of the social contract post), I explicitly said I was talking about a table culture set around a structure of priorities rather than a set of protocols or explicit rules. So I am absolutely talking about 'different ways to play' here. That's my point, that basically these absolute positions come with a lot of implicit assumptions about what gaming is that simply are not true at every table. So no, I do not take as assumption that a player is violating the table culture by cheating, or that we must accept that 'cheating is bad'.


I think there's two conversations happening here, that are crossing.

Conversation A: "If the table is okay with something, then it is okay. The only thing that is actually bad is something that the table as a whole is not okay with. I define 'cheating' as 'doing things the table is not okay with'". I'll call this ACheating. This doesn't have to be

Conversation B: "The rules of the game exist, and we should follow the rules of the game. Not doing so is cheating. These may be houserules, but rules is rules." I'll call this BCheating.


I'm arguing that those assumptions do not actually fit every table, so arguments that proceed from them and try to claim absolutes like 'cheating is always bad because its dishonest, and if it isn't dishonest it isn't cheating' are not as universal as they may sound.

That's a restatement of ACheating, which I think is what I think a lot of people are saying.


Basically don't mistake your personal preferences for universal truth. That's all.

Yes, this is a restatement of ACheating. I don't think that there's as much disagreement as you think.

[NichG]

I think there's two conversations happening here, that are crossing.

Conversation A: "If the table is okay with something, then it is okay. The only thing that is actually bad is something that the table as a whole is not okay with. I define 'cheating' as 'doing things the table is not okay with'". I'll call this ACheating. This doesn't have to be

Conversation B: "The rules of the game exist, and we should follow the rules of the game. Not doing so is cheating. These may be houserules, but rules is rules." I'll call this BCheating.

That's a restatement of ACheating, which I think is what I think a lot of people are saying.

Yes, this is a restatement of ACheating. I don't think that there's as much disagreement as you think.

Well, my original response was basically to argue that there's value in retaining the word 'cheating' even in ACheating sorts of contexts, rather than just defining it to not exist by equating 'cheating' with 'doing things the table is not okay with', because cheating specifically has the connotation of someone deciding on their own to surreptitiously violate a set of rules. And if we consider that table rules and game rules need not be the same thing, one can independently decide to ignore or violate the game rules but still be doing things the table is okay with. It can be useful to have a word for that kind of thing. Additionally, there are many forms of doing things the table is not okay with which would not have the deceptive factor of violating a rule without seeming to, that would not necessarily even have the factor that tends to be associated with cheating in that there is some established protocol which can be objectively evaluated and someone is deviating from that protocol, etc.

At a table where the table culture is to generally be civil and kind to one another, I don't think I'd call someone who harasses another player OOC 'a cheater' for example. You could define the word that way, but it seems to lose a lot of specificity in doing so.

I'm generally against defining things in order to reinforce existing valences, e.g. 'because cheating has negative connotations to me, I want it to be defined in a way such that no neutral or positive examples can exist'. It tends to just reduce things to conversational attack or defense ammunition - e.g. 'this is a bad word, now you have to try to dodge being tagged by it'. As opposed to words that help span the space of different ways things can be, words that help clarify distinctions, words that let you apply logic and draw conclusions...

Anyhow, gbaji's response was a more direct disagreement with the premise that it was even possible to coherently have a table that says 'cheating is fine', using things like call to views on health or supposition about 'what players would really enjoy'. Which was a disagreement rather than just a matter of semantics, though it was basically oblique to the point I was originally making.

[gbaji]

This (which is what I responded to)


I mean, I've been at a few such tables and at the request of one of my players, I ran one of my games this way as well. None of those particular game styles was competitive/challenge-centric, so things like 'gaining victory or success' were less of an issue than in those cases moderating how players felt with regards to the mood of the game and game events.

Does not match up with this:


Fort save against a death effect for example. Skill check to diffuse an artifact about to explode and destroy the town the PCs grew up in for another example. On a good day, someone might be like 'bring it!'. On a bad day where things have already been going poorly, they might determine for themselves 'if this goes poorly, I'm probably just going to detach from the game'. Basically, the kind of situation where normally the stakes introduced by the GM would be okay, but due to something that player is aware of which the GM isn't, those stakes were not okay. So the player can use their judgment of their own mental state and relationship with the game to choose whether to override (and by doing it via fudging and talking with the GM later, they can prevent it from becoming a big deal or OOC discussion when they know this is just their how their mood is at the time).

Those are very clearly extreme examples of "challenge centric" scenarios. You don't get more challenge centric than "save or die" or "make the roll of your entire village dies".

Maybe avoid putting that much consequence on a single roll of the die in the first place? I think that's a better approach then presenting the players with an "all or nothing" single die roll, but then backing off on the severity by allowing them to just make the die roll on a handwave if they or you feel like it at the time. Don't put situations like that in your game if you don't think your players want to play those things out and deal with the consequences of failure.

What you're teaching your players is that you are inconsistent with the application of your rules during play and that they can manipulate you into granting them success when they need it most. It's not the worst thing, and I can see how you can fall into a situation like that and only realize at the last moment that "Oh. This is going to suck" and then backing off. But the correct lesson from that is to learn to avoid putting players into those situations (again, if the table is such that this isn't what players want) rather than deciding that "sometimes, letting them succeed despite the die roll result is ok".

You initially presented a case where the outcome didn't really matter that much in what I assumed to be a fun lighthearted scenario. What you're describing now is the exact opposite of that.


In my post that you originally responded to (which itself was in response to PhoenixPhyre's - paraphrased - all cheating is by definition in violation of the social contract post), I explicitly said I was talking about a table culture set around a structure of priorities rather than a set of protocols or explicit rules. So I am absolutely talking about 'different ways to play' here. That's my point, that basically these absolute positions come with a lot of implicit assumptions about what gaming is that simply are not true at every table. So no, I do not take as assumption that a player is violating the table culture by cheating, or that we must accept that 'cheating is bad'. I'm arguing that those assumptions do not actually fit every table, so arguments that proceed from them and try to claim absolutes like 'cheating is always bad because its dishonest, and if it isn't dishonest it isn't cheating' are not as universal as they may sound.

Basically don't mistake your personal preferences for universal truth. That's all.

I'm going to paraphrase (again) someone else's statement (and I can't remember who said it). By definition all cheating is "bad", because (again, by definition), you are doing something that the table has decided isn't allowed. The concept of a "table culture" allowing this is a false statement, because if your table rules say "we can fudge die rolls if we feel like it, or it works for the story, or whatever", then those are "the rules" at the table. There is no cheating in that situation.

It's possible that we're describing the same concept and just using different words, but I'm trying to make it clear that if the table has agreed to a set of rules (whatever they are), then those are the rules. Violating the rules is cheating. Period. And cheating is always "bad". Period. That's not a "personal preference", that is axiomatic to the definitions of the words we are using.

So I think we're agreeing on everything except terminology here.

EDIT: And I probably should have just read the previous two posts. Yeah. I'd suggest just not using the word "cheating" to describe what you're doing, then you no longer have the negative connotation associated with it. You don't have to say "cheating isn't always bad" if you don't define what you're doing as cheating in the first place. I wouldn't define it that way at all. The players are all following the rules agreed upon by everyone at the table. That's not cheating.

EDIT2: I should also add that if this behavior at the table is agreed upon, then it's fine and not cheating. I would caution against the possibility that what you're describing as "table culture" is actually the tail end of the "cheating spreads at a table to other players" dynamic many of us have spoken about. In the former case, everyone is in agreement, no one feels like they are "cheating", and everyone is happy. In the latter, what could happen is that playerA starts cheating on critical die rolls. PlayerB notices this and also notices that the GM never seems to call playerA on this. So playerB finds himself in a tough spot one day and decides to fudge his die roll as well. He's normally not ok with this, but playerA is getting away with it regularly, and the situation is really important, so why not? Then, over time, it becomes just a habit to fudge the die rolls whenever it's important. Over more time, the other players also become increasingly aware of this and follow suit (for the same reason playerB did). What may appear to be "table culture where this is fine" is actually one player who likes to cheat, and 4-5 other players who don't, but are doing so because it "seems to be ok". The GM, meanwhile, is aware of this, but doesn't want to create conflict so he ignores it, not maybe realizing that this is actually making all the players but playerA extremely uncomfortable because they are doing things that they personally think are wrong, have never been explicitly told is "ok", but just by sheer "no one's punished me for this yet", continue doing so. They are all afraid to actually say anything about it openly because of this. You also get strange collective behavior at the table like when a critical roll is being rolled, instead of everyone gathering around and watching the die roll in anticipation, everyone is looking away from the die roller so they don't overtly "know" if the player fudged the die or not.

In that scenario, it's actually a pretty unhealthy table. Again. This is the reason why you should not allow this sort of thing in the first place (cause it will spread), but if you find yourself at that extreme end of the scale on this, the options to fix things aren't great. The best thing is to actually speak to your players and ask them how they really feel about this. If there is actual agreement that occasional fudging on die rolls is ok, then let that be the rule. The players will be much more comfortable playing in that environment. If they don't want to, but you've been avoiding asking the question, then you are allowing this sort of cloud to hang over the table, and that's not healthy. Heck. You can even codify it into the house rules: "once per game session, scenario, game day, whatever, each character gets to just decide one bad roll is a success instead". Call it the mulligan rule or something. But have something that is clear to your players as to the expectations while playing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm going to paraphrase (again) someone else's statement (and I can't remember who said it). By definition all cheating is "bad", because (again, by definition), you are doing something that the table has decided isn't allowed. The concept of a "table culture" allowing this is a false statement, because if your table rules say "we can fudge die rolls if we feel like it, or it works for the story, or whatever", then those are "the rules" at the table. There is no cheating in that situation.

It's possible that we're describing the same concept and just using different words, but I'm trying to make it clear that if the table has agreed to a set of rules (whatever they are), then those are the rules. Violating the rules is cheating. Period. And cheating is always "bad". Period. That's not a "personal preference", that is axiomatic to the definitions of the words we are using.

So I think we're agreeing on everything except terminology here.

EDIT: And I probably should have just read the previous two posts. Yeah. I'd suggest just not using the word "cheating" to describe what you're doing, then you no longer have the negative connotation associated with it. You don't have to say "cheating isn't always bad" if you don't define what you're doing as cheating in the first place. I wouldn't define it that way at all. The players are all following the rules agreed upon by everyone at the table. That's not cheating.

Me. You're paraphrasing me. And I agree =)

Personally, the only reason I can see to "unnegative" the word 'cheating' is to blur the lines of what is permitted. To claim "I'm cheating, but I'm just doing what you all would have wanted me to do if you only knew!". Which quickly turns into regular cheating. I'm in favor of bold, clear lines. Is <action> in accord with the table's rules? Not cheating. The game's rules aren't really operative, binding rules by themselves. No more than the Model Code is binding in and of itself; it's only when implemented by a table that it becomes binding. And only to the degree that the table incorporates it.

---aside
I reject the distinction between "RAW", "RAI", "houserules", "homebrew" and "rulings" when dealing with the question of what the rules are. Where they came from doesn't matter--if they're rules the table has accepted, then they're all equally binding. And nothing that the table hasn't accepted is. You can't (in my eyes) say "but RAW says..." to defend an action against the table's rules. You can raise a request for a change to the table rules to align better with your interpretation of RAW, but that's exactly on level with raising a request for any other alteration to the table's rules. Table rules are the only real rules.

[gbaji]

Me. You're paraphrasing me. And I agree =)

Hah! I knew it was... someone. :smallcool:


Personally, the only reason I can see to "unnegative" the word 'cheating' is to blur the lines of what is permitted. To claim "I'm cheating, but I'm just doing what you all would have wanted me to do if you only knew!". Which quickly turns into regular cheating. I'm in favor of bold, clear lines. Is <action> in accord with the table's rules? Not cheating. The game's rules aren't really operative, binding rules by themselves. No more than the Model Code is binding in and of itself; it's only when implemented by a table that it becomes binding. And only to the degree that the table incorporates it.

Yeah. Touched on this in my second edit. After re-reading, it occurred to me that a "table culture" could develop that appears to be fine with fudging die rolls, but it's never actually been openly discussed or codified in any way. And in that case, one might also fudge the wording like you just described: "Well, it's kinda cheating, but not really. Maybe. Sorta. But it's ok. Really! I think...".

Making a clear distinction between what is allowed and what is not also makes it clear what is cheating and what is not. If there's any uncertainty, then there should be an open conversation about that case and what the rules are. If there's a lot of uncertainty, and no talking about it, then that's usually an indication of a problem at the table. Can you continue playing at such a table and have a good time? Sure. But I suspect that most players would prefer to know that what they are doing is actually ok instead of just hoping/assuming so because no one's been called out on it yet despite it technically being against the rules.

[NichG]

This (which is what I responded to)

Does not match up with this:

Those are very clearly extreme examples of "challenge centric" scenarios. You don't get more challenge centric than "save or die" or "make the roll of your entire village dies".


Not really. To be challenge-centric, it would require that the challenge of dealing with these things was the point and purpose of play - that is, that the players and GM were there to be challenged and then see if they could overcome those challenges. If you have a challenge-centric game and then no-sell the challenge, you damage the integrity of the exercise. In those cases, someone saying 'you know what, I don't feel like dying today, so I don't' did not undermine the integrity of the game, because 'that the game is challenging' was not a necessary or very important element, even if there were things that one could consider challenging.

Elements can be present to depict things as-the-are in that fantasy world - the necromancer has death spells because that's what necromancers are about, and if you get up in his face and try to kill him yes he will use those spells. Doesn't disrupt the integrity of the game if it just so happens that on a 50/50 chance of surviving, the PC who is targeted happens to survive.

Elements can be present to give players an opportunity to depict or play through certain modes of behavior - does your character sacrifice themselves to save their village? Doesn't disrupt the integrity of the game if someone says 'yeah I'm not interested in the whole heroic sacrifice thing, that's not what I'm here to explore'

Elements can be present to ask players questions about their priorities or give the feeling of weight to choices. No-selling that weight does harm the integrity of that kind of play a little bit, but often 'there's more where that came from' so while its not great, its not as important as other things going on at the table to preserve that.



Maybe avoid putting that much consequence on a single roll of the die in the first place? I think that's a better approach then presenting the players with an "all or nothing" single die roll, but then backing off on the severity by allowing them to just make the die roll on a handwave if they or you feel like it at the time. Don't put situations like that in your game if you don't think your players want to play those things out and deal with the consequences of failure.


Nitpicking examples almost never really leads to proper communication or understanding. That said, the example I gave was explicitly one in which normally that would be okay, but one player was having a bad day and recognized that no, in this particular case on this particular day, this wasn't going to be okay.



You initially presented a case where the outcome didn't really matter that much in what I assumed to be a fun lighthearted scenario. What you're describing now is the exact opposite of that.


The outcome doesn't matter that much in the metagame sense - the game is not ruined by cheating. But it absolutely can be very serious in the moment. That's not a paradox - those cases where the game is heaviest and pushing people as close as they're willing to go to their boundaries are the ones in which its most valuable for players to have complete control over release valves that they're completely comfortable with using without any judgment being cast on them for using them. It's not that dissimilar from the concept of a safeword.

Whether a given table needs that tool depends on the table's preferences for content, the specific individuals at the table and their hangups and moods, etc. If you have a table where people are comfortable saying 'you know what, this isn't fun anymore, can we just skip or retcon?' and they're secure that they won't be judged for that, great! If you've got a table where some of the players are non-confrontational or discussion-averse, or the group dynamic has a tendency to blow things out of proportion if they're raised to the level of meta-discourse, hey, there are alternate methods to let people manage their needs!



I'm going to paraphrase (again) someone else's statement (and I can't remember who said it). By definition all cheating is "bad", because (again, by definition), you are doing something that the table has decided isn't allowed. The concept of a "table culture" allowing this is a false statement, because if your table rules say "we can fudge die rolls if we feel like it, or it works for the story, or whatever", then those are "the rules" at the table. There is no cheating in that situation.

It's possible that we're describing the same concept and just using different words, but I'm trying to make it clear that if the table has agreed to a set of rules (whatever they are), then those are the rules. Violating the rules is cheating. Period. And cheating is always "bad". Period. That's not a "personal preference", that is axiomatic to the definitions of the words we are using.


The specific example I gave was one where the high level table culture took the form of a set of subjective priorities which individuals at the table were responsible for upholding, and where that table had agreed at one level of priority (but not the top level) to play a specific game with specific rules. Violating the rules of that game is meaningfully 'cheating' that specific game, but would not be violating the table culture if it was done in order to protect those higher level priorities. The word is specific and has meaning and utility, but also is not 'automatically bad' in that case. It is still cheating.

In particular I think its important to pay attention to the difference between rules or protocols and systems of values. Cheating is something that exists in the context of violating a rule or protocol. Acting in a way that is not in accordance to an agreed upon system of values is a different concept.



EDIT2: I should also add that if this behavior at the table is agreed upon, then it's fine and not cheating. I would caution against the possibility that what you're describing as "table culture" is actually the tail end of the "cheating spreads at a table to other players" dynamic many of us have spoken about. In the former case, everyone is in agreement, no one feels like they are "cheating", and everyone is happy. In the latter, what could happen is that playerA starts cheating on critical die rolls. PlayerB notices this and also notices that the GM never seems to call playerA on this. So playerB finds himself in a tough spot one day and decides to fudge his die roll as well. He's normally not ok with this, but playerA is getting away with it regularly, and the situation is really important, so why not? Then, over time, it becomes just a habit to fudge the die rolls whenever it's important. Over more time, the other players also become increasingly aware of this and follow suit (for the same reason playerB did). What may appear to be "table culture where this is fine" is actually one player who likes to cheat, and 4-5 other players who don't, but are doing so because it "seems to be ok". The GM, meanwhile, is aware of this, but doesn't want to create conflict so he ignores it, not maybe realizing that this is actually making all the players but playerA extremely uncomfortable because they are doing things that they personally think are wrong, have never been explicitly told is "ok", but just by sheer "no one's punished me for this yet", continue doing so. They are all afraid to actually say anything about it openly because of this. You also get strange collective behavior at the table like when a critical roll is being rolled, instead of everyone gathering around and watching the die roll in anticipation, everyone is looking away from the die roller so they don't overtly "know" if the player fudged the die or not.

In that scenario, it's actually a pretty unhealthy table. Again. This is the reason why you should not allow this sort of thing in the first place (cause it will spread), but if you find yourself at that extreme end of the scale on this, the options to fix things aren't great. The best thing is to actually speak to your players and ask them how they really feel about this. If there is actual agreement that occasional fudging on die rolls is ok, then let that be the rule. The players will be much more comfortable playing in that environment. If they don't want to, but you've been avoiding asking the question, then you are allowing this sort of cloud to hang over the table, and that's not healthy. Heck. You can even codify it into the house rules: "once per game session, scenario, game day, whatever, each character gets to just decide one bad roll is a success instead". Call it the mulligan rule or something. But have something that is clear to your players as to the expectations while playing.

You're just giving hypotheticals that you imagine to be the case. I have given specific examples from actual play in which the cheating behavior did not spread the way you seem to believe it inevitably would - one example from a situation in which cheating was tacitly allowed, another from a situation in which it wasn't. In neither case did it spread like you're thinking.

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[gbaji]

Not really. To be challenge-centric, it would require that the challenge of dealing with these things was the point and purpose of play - that is, that the players and GM were there to be challenged and then see if they could overcome those challenges. If you have a challenge-centric game and then no-sell the challenge, you damage the integrity of the exercise. In those cases, someone saying 'you know what, I don't feel like dying today, so I don't' did not undermine the integrity of the game, because 'that the game is challenging' was not a necessary or very important element, even if there were things that one could consider challenging.

I'm not sure I agree here. A challenge centric game is one in which the objectives of the player characters in the game are achieved by overcoming challenges in the game. That's it. The degree to which a game is challenge centric is the degree to which the challenges to be overcome are central to the methodology of success and the degree of risk/reward those challenges present to the characters along the way. So yeah, a "save or die" situation is a high degree of challenge in the game. There's no concept of "the challenge is the objective". Challenges are always things to be overcome along the way to the objective. No one plays a game so they can roll "save or die" situations. They play the game to engage in a story of defeating the bad guy, and along the way may have to overcome a "save or die" risk to get there. But no, the saving roll, or the roll to prevent the village from exploding is never actually the objective of play.

This is contrasted with social centric games, where the objectives of the PC are primarily achieved via social interaction, conversation, decision making etc. Some social centric games don't even bother with dice (or use them rarely), since it's more about playing your character well, and coming up with interesting ideas then about making skill rolls using dice to figure out if you did well. Obviously most games will have some elements of both of these (although there are some examples on the extremes). It's about the "how" of objective resolution that determines this.

You're speaking about (I think? It's hard to tell really) what the player objectives are for playing the game itself. Which is a whole different ball of wax and can be extremely varied. Some players play just to hang out with people and have fun and don't care much about the game, the rules, or the success of the characters in the game either. Some players play to "win", and are extremely focused on doing the best they can. Some players are "builders" and want to create things in a made up world. Heck. Some players are "bossers" and play RPGs specifically so they can tell other people what to do, how to best play their characters, etc. There are all sorts of reasons people play and different things they get out of playing.


Elements can be present to depict things as-the-are in that fantasy world - the necromancer has death spells because that's what necromancers are about, and if you get up in his face and try to kill him yes he will use those spells. Doesn't disrupt the integrity of the game if it just so happens that on a 50/50 chance of surviving, the PC who is targeted happens to survive.

If the success against the necromancer in this example didn't matter, or the necromancers attempts to thwart you don't matter, then why bother having it there in the first place? You're putting in significant risks for the PCs to deal with, with serious consequences, but then saying "eh. It doesn't really matter". Which is it? I'm honestly confused about how you are playing this table.



Nitpicking examples almost never really leads to proper communication or understanding. That said, the example I gave was explicitly one in which normally that would be okay, but one player was having a bad day and recognized that no, in this particular case on this particular day, this wasn't going to be okay.

Ok. Then let me be really specific with my question:

When that player makes that decision, does the player verbally state to the table/GM: "I don't feel like failing at this. Can we just say I succeed?", and then the table/GM agrees, and we all move on? Or does the player assume it's ok to just succeed if he wants and fudges the die roll to ensure success?

Those two are dramatically different, but it's still quite unclear from your posts which is the case. Also, no one would ever describe the first option as "cheating", while the second would/might be. I ask because you keep referring to this as "cheating" within the rules of the specific game being played *and* this entire side discussion started with talking about "cheating on dice rolls", which most of us interpret as doing this in secret and not asking permission first. So.. very relevant.




The specific example I gave was one where the high level table culture took the form of a set of subjective priorities which individuals at the table were responsible for upholding, and where that table had agreed at one level of priority (but not the top level) to play a specific game with specific rules. Violating the rules of that game is meaningfully 'cheating' that specific game, but would not be violating the table culture if it was done in order to protect those higher level priorities. The word is specific and has meaning and utility, but also is not 'automatically bad' in that case. It is still cheating.

This paragraph also confuses me. Are you saying that the gaming table as a whole has a previously agreed upon rule that "If a player is uncomfortable/unhappy with something in any game we play, they can simply choose to ignore the rules of the game we are playing and just assume an outcome that they are more comfortable/happy with", and therefore even if the specific game says "You have to roll this save or you die", that player is free to ignore it? That the "higher level" priority of the previous table agreement takes precedence?

I'm just trying to nail down what you're actually talking about because you keep saying the word "specific(ally)", but then write a lot of broad generalities like in this paragraph like "set of subjective priorities which individuals at the table were responsible for upholding". Huh? Which priorities? How were they subjective? How are they responsible for upholding them? What form does upholding them take? Be specific. You don't need to name names or whatever, but something like "we all agreed to allow people to fudge dice rolls whenever they want" is a far more detailed and useful statement.

And I'll point out, again, that this is all very contingent upon open communication. If this was openly discussed and agreed upon, and everyone understands the rules, and everyone abides by those rules (and what appears to be a rule hierarchy as well), then that's great. But you keep tap dancing around those little details and then calling what the players are doing "cheating". Openly communicated rules and then implementation of those rules is key here. If the players are not actually saying when they use this "rule", and you are calling it "cheating" (but it's "ok"), then on some level there's some need for the players/GM to conceal what is actually going on.

If everything is actually really "ok", and everyone agrees upon the rules, and the specific action being taken is completely within those rules, then no one should have any problem saying "I'm exercising rule 12" (or whatever) and then taking the auto success. Again. I'm not saying that's *not* what's happening, but the lack of you clearly stating that as a fact makes me not help but wonder.


In particular I think its important to pay attention to the difference between rules or protocols and systems of values. Cheating is something that exists in the context of violating a rule or protocol. Acting in a way that is not in accordance to an agreed upon system of values is a different concept.

Well. Technically, sure. But the "system of values" should also be that "cheating is wrong", or the actual rules and the entire concept of cheating somewhat falls apart. I'll also point out that you have mentioned rules in association with "rules or protocols", and then identified a "system of values" as something different, but not actually stated how it's different or how it relates to the concept of cheating. I'm left to speculate that maybe you're just saying there's some additional factor but it's not relevant, or maybe that it is relevant and changes when cheating is "bad" (which would seem to be a core point to be made if that was the case), yet are unwilling to actually describe what you are talking about for some reason.

How is a "system of values" different than "rules and protocols", specifically as it relates to cheating? I'm assuming it has something to do with the higher level priorities you spoke of previously, but I'm forced to speculate on that front (as I was on the previous one).



You're just giving hypotheticals that you imagine to be the case. I have given specific examples from actual play in which the cheating behavior did not spread the way you seem to believe it inevitably would - one example from a situation in which cheating was tacitly allowed, another from a situation in which it wasn't. In neither case did it spread like you're thinking.

Yes. I'm presenting a hypothetical. I do this when someone presents a scenario and what they have written does not actually exclude the possibility of the hypothetical from being true. I don't know, nor can I know, if it is true in your case at your table, but I can't rule it out because you haven't provided enough specific detail to do so.

So yeah. I'll present that hypothetical as a possibility that we must consider, not just because your verbal tap dancing around the subject makes me suspect that it might be true (might not though!), but that it's also something of value for other people on this forum to consider when looking at behavior at their own gaming tables. It's how that sort of thing *can* progress at a table. And it's an examination of what symptoms to look for as a GM to spot it happening. And yes, my own personal opinion about what you should do about it if you see it.


You have to acknowledge that while it's certainly possible that your gaming table plays the way it does because it's all good and everyone is on the same page and in agreement about the rules and follows them openly and honestly, it's also possible that the exact behavior you are describing *could* be the result of a cheating player spreading cheating to everyone else, with a GM unwilling to do anything about it, and over time just accepting it, and then well after the fact rationalizing it as "ok". I honestly don't know which is the case. But that's the point.

I don't know. And I can only post factually from a pov of what I do know. Everything else is speculation. You've left me with little to do but speculate, so you can't really be surprised when that's what I do. Maybe this is just me not understanding what you are saying, but I honestly don't have a clue how you are actually running your table,, what rules you have in place, what discussions you have had with your players about those rules, etc. Saying "there are agreements we have" isn't telling me what those agreements are and whether they actually apply to and allow for the behavior you have described. So yeah. I'm going to have to speculate and guess.

[Quertus]

@gbaji - Pure comedic gold! And good points! Amazing performance, 10/10! Kudos!

I suppose it's possible that, despite your generally really good posts and insights, that you actually have a blind spot, or a misunderstanding, and aren't helping me get better with laughter on purpose. Or you might intentionally be playing Devil's Advocate, because you see something that you think I should have pointed out, but I've been too dumb to say. So I suppose it would behoove me to play the straight man, and poke around for that blind spot / that response you're trying to evoke. To that end, let's start, if not at the beginning, then at the path to the beginning:


What about my comments do you find relevant?

So, for context, this thread of conversation was initiated in reply to

Some players prefer being "lucky" such that they never seem to roll below a 10, and always seem to get that natural 20 on important saves... other players need to start fudging too if they want to continue being effective

Clearly, the context is cheating on rolling dice, and the "scientific Hypothesis" (more "stated as gospel", but whatever) is a binary "cheat, or be ineffective".

With me so far?



So, that big'ol list of "relevant" comments by you? They were relevant because they actually related to the conversation at hand. So, for example,

You are absolutely correct that in cases where someone's character is so much more capable at a specific task than another that the other player cheating at that task doesn't make any difference and therefore wont make the player of the more powerful character feel a need to cheat.
That clearly directly ties in to the conversation about cheating on die rolls, and whether it serves as an inducement to cheating among the rest of the group.

With me so far?



However,

@Quertus. That's an incredible amount of nonsense text to avoid addressing the very simple concept that most of us learned at an early age that "cheating is wrong".

And way to completely miss the point.

Here you've gone completely off-script, and forgotten the context. Which, again, is

Some players prefer being "lucky" such that they never seem to roll below a 10, and always seem to get that natural 20 on important saves... other players need to start fudging too if they want to continue being effective

or, again, "cheat, or be ineffective".

I"m assuming you're not going to pull a rabbit out of your hat, and explain how, magically, "learning at an early age that cheating is wrong" has anything whatsoever to do with "effectiveness". Let alone how "learning at an early age that cheating is wrong" somehow makes it obvious that everyone must therefore cheat.

So comments talking about how cheating is wrong - unless they go on to explain how that produces more cheaters *OR* are used to support my position that the cheating won't necessarily spread (like I'm going to do later in this post, senility willing) - are not relevant to exploring Anymage's claim, and completely miss the point.

With me so far?



So, the literal answer to the question,

What about my comments do you find relevant? is that they are relevant, that they are actually related to the thread of conversation.

Do you agree or disagree? That's a bigger question. I suppose... I disagree that the direction from which you are approaching the problem is likely to be productive, is likely to allow you to see the things which you currently do not see, which is why I keep trying to help everyone see the problem from a different perspective.

Which is why I went to the trouble of engaging with your (otherwise pointless - but more on that below) comment about two identical rogues, and detailed out that whole scenario, then asked you one very simple question:

So, what part of that adventure do you think should have rendered me ineffective? What part of that adventure should have enticed me to cheat?

That is the important part to explore, and you completely dropped the ball on doing so.

So, again, in your words,

How about we discuss cases where one player cheats and it makes the other player's characters "less effective" as a result?


Let's take two rogues. They have identical skills.


Cause that would seem to be more relevant to the discussion at hand.


Why is this complicated for you?


-----
And now, on to other things?
-----



Exactly. I raised a hypothetical case of "two identical rogues", not because I'm assuming that a party would have two absolutely identical characters in it, but to show that when two characters do have similar (or even identical) odds of completing any given task in an adventure and one is cheating on the die rolls, it's unfair to the player of the other character.

So. Here we have a seemingly relevant and insightful comment. Cheating on die rolls is unfair to the other Players. Sounds positively simple and obvious, right?

The first chink in the seemingly perfect armor of that thought is this:

In one case, the GM had moderate depression and I think based in part on their own experiences of being sometimes just sent into a spiral by things that on a good day they would take in stride, they took the view that if someone really really needed a nat 20, even a fake one, to help salvage their mood - go for it.

Kudos on your whole treatment of this idea, @NichG. I think I mumbled something about "if they need to to have fun" or something, but you've really brought home much more visceral, much more relatable examples of the superset I was trying to kinda maybe point vaguely towards or something.

But here's the next problem: why is cheating on die rolls unfair to the other Players? The answer is because it breaks balance, it makes the character more effective (that thing we were exploring). The problem is,
Cheating makes the character more effective
Better Build makes the character more effective
Player Skill makes the character more effective
Simple Luck makes the character more effective
Knowledge:GM makes the character more effective
Adventure Synergy makes the character more effective
Teamwork makes the character more effective
Genre Savviness makes the character more effective
Reading the Module makes the character more effective
Getting Advice Online makes the character more effective
Metagaming makes the character more effective
Not being exhausted after work makes the character more effective
Aiming for Determinator effectiveness over Roleplaying makes the character more effective
Planning makes the character more effective
Preparing makes the character more effective


Oh, and let's not forget, it being something that the character is good at makes the character more effective. Sound like those first examples I gave, maybe?

Balance to the Table is about the final output. "Build" is just one factor of many that affects that output, as is "Cheating". Note how my lengthy "twin rogues" story referenced a few of these?

On a related note, as much as I enjoy the... lore?... of Warhammer 40k, I'm pretty much The Load as a player, because I just don't "get it". I'd have to be playing the God Emperor reborn, or Tzeentch himself, to be "balanced" in a party of starting Inquisitors.

Most of all, let's not ignore the fact that some statistical anomalies are, in fact, just luck. Others, like "being a good at gambling", involve the observer mistaking skill for luck.



-----
What else?
-----




Also, as has already been pointed out, this is not the D&D only forum. I play in a game that is purely skill based. Every character has a scan skill on their sheet. Every character has a search skill. Every character has a hide, a sneak, a climb, and a track skill. Every. Character. Some are better at those things than others based on past actions and experiences. Every character also has some form of magic. Some are better at it than others and the specific spells they can cast vary. Every character has weapons they carry and... you guessed it... different skills at using those weapons. They do not fit into completely sanitized categories of "this guy fights and that's all he does" and "this guy casts spells and that's all he does", and "this guy heals/protects and that's all he does" and "this guy sneaks, steals, and backstabs and that's all he does".

In a game like that, one player cheating is absolutely devastating to game balance at the table. Because relative skill at something is usually an indicator of not just age/experience, but also character focus. One player chose to focus his character on being good at sneaking, but at the expense of being good at say fighting. If the party fighter cheats on his rolls so that he's just as successful at sneaking but is also better at fighting, then that absolutely causes a problem. This is actually *worse* in skill buy systems than experience roll systems too. If my Shadowrun decker consistently manages to get just as many successes with his weapon as the street samurai who spent many more points on his weapon skills, that can be a problem. If I manage to succeed at 6 out of 6 dice every time, while you have 12 dice to get the same six successes consistently (assuming a standard 4 target roll here), you are probably going to feel a bit unhappy about that over time. You focused on your weapon skills so that you'd be better at it and sacrificed other things your character could have been good at (or even had the ability to do) as a consequence. Game balance is completely broken if the GM doesn't stop this.

Nah, don't care. The only thing I did care about was, I refused to spend points on "ancient" (ie, modern) pop culture knowledge, in a game where I knew that another player would make modern references (without spending the points) as soon as anyone else did.

Other than that, I am who I am, regardless of who you are. I'm still a genius, even if you're Einstein. I'm still a klutz, even if you're... um... I got nothin'. Point is, I'm still telling the story of <character>, regardless of who she's teamed up with.

So long as the fluff doesn't Captain Hobo me, I don't give a **** about the mechanics you seem so concerned with.




And even in game systems where class/role is more defined and significant at determining what a given PC can do in a scenario, the question one has to ask is "if it doesn't actually matter to the players, then why is anyone cheating in the first place"? Clearly, to the guy cheating on the die rolls, it matters that he succeeds (even at something he's otherwise marginal at), or he wouldn't do it. Even if the characters themselves have clearly defined roles with little overlap, if character A is always successful at his role, but character B fails at his occasionally, and Player B realizes that it's because Player A is cheating, he's going to feel a pressure/need to cheat as well.

What happened to,

most of us learned at an early age that "cheating is wrong"?

Do you really only have experience with humans with such a weak moral compass, that they would be willing to compromise their beliefs over elfgames? :smallconfused::smalleek:

As much as I generally loathe humanity, and consider the vast bulk of the species too evil for my tastes, my experiences (that's roughly 40 years gaming experience, with at the peak meeting with 6 groups per week) run in the opposite direction, that the great majority of humanity does not compromise on their values so easily.

I'm not sure if the people we know are that different, the influence we have on them is that different, or if you're just pessimistic while I'm speaking from experience.


I think the problem here is that you are trying to contrive situations where cheating by one player doesn't matter to the other players. And yes, I believe that it's possible to do that in a hypothetical scenario. But at a real functional gaming table? I'm just not seeing it.

And that's your blind spot. I have seen it, many times. And I'm trying to help you to see it. By - gasp! - trying to help you think in terms of "how can I make this not matter?". That's... kinda the point. You're missing the point, because you keep trying to dismiss it. So, instead, why not try embracing it, and see where that takes you?


It's just odd because the original argument was that one player cheating would tend to lead to other players cheating, but your counter more or less assumes that everyone is playing in an environment where no one cares if the other players cheat because they all have such narrow defined roles they are good at that all that means is they all collectively do better at the adventure. If no one is actually competing to see which character is "better" at something than the rest, then why is the one guy doing it in the first place?

I'm assuming you've "answered your own question" / seen answers to this question by now, yes?


If we assume that is happening (and it's a given in the argument itself), and it's being allowed by the GM and the other players, then isn't it also reasonable to assume that this same behavior will spread to the other players as well?

Nope. I mean, I suppose it's reasonable to assume a lot of false things? But I'm speaking from roughly 40 years experience that the hypothesis is false.

Which, of course, is just... word... OK, sans the right word, I'll say "stories" rather than "science". (Anecdotal Evidence! Yes?) I'm not a licensed therapist, and I don't even play one in an RPG. Psychology is just a hobby for me.

Which is yet another reason why I made that long post, and explicitly asked, why do you believe I would cheat in this scenario?


Same deal. Cheating by one will spread to others. Slightly different rationale for it in your scenario, but it'll still happen.

40 years of gaming experience says it didn't. Why do you believe it must still happen?



Because if all the players care about is "winning the scenario", and the GM allows them to cheat to do it, then why not all cheat? You've contrived a scenario where the other players wont care about cheating, but only because they care about collectively "winning" even more. I happen to think that's an even worse table environment than what most posters were envisioning, but that's just my opinion.

I'm not sure where you got this from, but I guess this is just wrong, and falls under "false conclusion from false premise".



And in my Shadowrun example above, wouldn't the samurai also start cheating just to make sure he gets more successes than the decker? Yeah. I think he will. Even if he's using a more powerful weapon that does more base damage, he's still going to feel pressure to be "X amount better than the wimp with the data port in his head". You have to seriously contrive situations where players aren't going to feel this pressure in the game, and frankly I find those situations to be unrealistic depictions of actual player behavior. In your scenario *everyone* will cheat because everyone will feel the need to up their game to match relative levels of success at their given roles. It would be a complete mess.

I've watched The Usual Suspects, I know about Keyser Söze. That's not at all the direction my thoughts would go.

If it should be physically impossible that a decker could ever gain any skill in a gun (which it isn't in Shadowrun), then the player might have a point, that the Decker was Captain Hoboing him with bad fluff. But he's not, so it should not result in cheating any attempt at corrective action (where "join them in cheating" most certainly isn't the first such my players would think of) - at least, not at my tables.


It's just such a fundamental aspect of game playing that it's hard to figure out why you are arguing in the first place.

Because it's so fundamental, most people don't bother thinking about it in the first place. And what they "know" is wrong.

How does that "why" make you feel?

[NichG]

I'm not sure I agree here. A challenge centric game is one in which the objectives of the player characters in the game are achieved by overcoming challenges in the game. That's it. The degree to which a game is challenge centric is the degree to which the challenges to be overcome are central to the methodology of success and the degree of risk/reward those challenges present to the characters along the way. So yeah, a "save or die" situation is a high degree of challenge in the game. There's no concept of "the challenge is the objective". Challenges are always things to be overcome along the way to the objective. No one plays a game so they can roll "save or die" situations. They play the game to engage in a story of defeating the bad guy, and along the way may have to overcome a "save or die" risk to get there. But no, the saving roll, or the roll to prevent the village from exploding is never actually the objective of play.


People do play things like tournament games, Dungeon Crawl Classics modules, and the like where the point of the experience is the difficulty. That is different from things in which there are dangerous things or high stakes, but where difficulty is not essential to the integrity of the activity. Neither of these is the same as playing 'in order to roll a save vs death'.

The test that is relevant to a discussion of cheating is - is the point of the game defeated if someone cheats? You can absolutely have a game in which save vs death is a thing that can occur, but also in which having that save arbitrarily get bypassed does not defeat the point of the game. Just like you can have a game with a villain who monologues but the game is not necessarily ruined by sneak-attacking the villain and interrupting the monologue.

Games can contain things which are not central to the purpose of the game. Thus not challenge-centric.



You're speaking about (I think? It's hard to tell really) what the player objectives are for playing the game itself. Which is a whole different ball of wax and can be extremely varied. Some players play just to hang out with people and have fun and don't care much about the game, the rules, or the success of the characters in the game either. Some players play to "win", and are extremely focused on doing the best they can. Some players are "builders" and want to create things in a made up world. Heck. Some players are "bossers" and play RPGs specifically so they can tell other people what to do, how to best play their characters, etc. There are all sorts of reasons people play and different things they get out of playing.

Yes, so in terms of a conversation about whether a certain position makes sense (like 'I will ask players to save vs death, but I'm okay with them just telling me that they pass the save') these player objectives are the actual important thing. Because that's how you evaluate 'does this policy actually achieve what it's trying to do?'.



If the success against the necromancer in this example didn't matter, or the necromancers attempts to thwart you don't matter, then why bother having it there in the first place? You're putting in significant risks for the PCs to deal with, with serious consequences, but then saying "eh. It doesn't really matter". Which is it? I'm honestly confused about how you are playing this table.


In a game that centers around exploration and experience, of course the world must be filled with stuff. And of course that stuff should generally be of potential significance. But since the point is the experience from the point of view of the players, if a player says 'actually lets skip that element', it's fine. Because sometimes they won't say 'lets skip that element'. You don't have to force the choice of whether something will be significant - you can allow the player to decide that.

In a game that centers around narrative, putting dangerous or high-stakes things is an opportunity to build a story on, but if someone decides 'lets not go that direction' it doesn't mean that offering the element was pointless. For freeform story games for example there's often the idea 'don't god-mod' - that is, you can say what the character you're writing for does, but the right to determine the consequences is given to the writer of the character that your character is doing it to. So e.g. you can say '(my character) James attacks (your character) Greg', and they can say 'Greg dies!' or 'Greg dodges perfectly!' or 'the attack bounces off!' - its their right. It would generally be courteous to 'make it look good' even if you're going to no-sell it in the end, but basically even if you just did reject it, the interaction isn't meaningless.



Ok. Then let me be really specific with my question:

When that player makes that decision, does the player verbally state to the table/GM: "I don't feel like failing at this. Can we just say I succeed?", and then the table/GM agrees, and we all move on? Or does the player assume it's ok to just succeed if he wants and fudges the die roll to ensure success?

Those two are dramatically different, but it's still quite unclear from your posts which is the case. Also, no one would ever describe the first option as "cheating", while the second would/might be. I ask because you keep referring to this as "cheating" within the rules of the specific game being played *and* this entire side discussion started with talking about "cheating on dice rolls", which most of us interpret as doing this in secret and not asking permission first. So.. very relevant.


I agree the former is not cheating. The latter is. I've been at tables that have worked either way. In the specific case of a player at my table in the game where I gave tacit permission, they said outside of play that if things were spiraling for them and they were getting depressed and detached from the game, they intended to fudge rolls, which I then said 'okay that's fine' - and generally in introducing my games and table I basically establish that I'm not going to be a stickler about things like that in general. So if and when that player later fudged at the table, they did not announce that that specific roll was one they were going to fudge. That is cheating, but it is cheating with approval to do so at their own recognizance. This player also GM'd and ran their own games giving players the same flexibility to moderate their own needs.

So yes there was permission, but not for the specific rolls, and still secret in the case of the specific rolls.



This paragraph also confuses me. Are you saying that the gaming table as a whole has a previously agreed upon rule that "If a player is uncomfortable/unhappy with something in any game we play, they can simply choose to ignore the rules of the game we are playing and just assume an outcome that they are more comfortable/happy with", and therefore even if the specific game says "You have to roll this save or you die", that player is free to ignore it? That the "higher level" priority of the previous table agreement takes precedence?


Usually not to that level of detail. The standard spiel I give at my table is something like 'the most important thing is that we get along and enjoy what we're doing - that trumps any considerations that come at the level of the game. Rules, previously established events, even things players previously promised to each-other are all less important. If a character's mechanics aren't working out, we'll change them on the fly if needed or you can rebuild. If you make an error on your sheet or whatever, maybe we fix it, maybe we run with it, but no fault. The rules are me communicating things about the world to you or promising to you that certain things will work a certain way, but they're not absolute laws that should be followed for their own sake - they exist to serve the purpose of the game and the group, not vice versa.'

At the table of the player I mentioned, it was less of a 'here is what you're buying into spiel' and more like frequent discussion about gaming philosophy with the rest of the group, such that topics like cheating and so on came up organically and that GM could state their feeling about such things and hear what the group said in turn.



I'm just trying to nail down what you're actually talking about because you keep saying the word "specific(ally)", but then write a lot of broad generalities like in this paragraph like "set of subjective priorities which individuals at the table were responsible for upholding". Huh? Which priorities? How were they subjective? How are they responsible for upholding them? What form does upholding them take? Be specific. You don't need to name names or whatever, but something like "we all agreed to allow people to fudge dice rolls whenever they want" is a far more detailed and useful statement.


You're looking for something like a set of rules, but what I'm saying is that such things don't exist. The 'rule' is 'make sure everyone is having fun and is in a good place mentally'. How do you do that? That's up to you, there's no rule that if you follow it guarantees it, so do what is needed to make sure that priority is respected. Below that, people may want to try out or explore different things, may want to play different games or experiment with different rules or whatever - that's all fine and ideally we respect that, but it's a lower priority than fun and wellbeing.

That's basically it. Its not a set of protocols or specific permissions and forbidden things. It's a set of values that people are expected to uphold. If a player breaks an explicitly stated rule but does so in a way that upholds the values, they did good!

There are things which are conducive or instrumental to upholding those values which are a sort of set of best practices - yes, communicating clearly is generally helpful, asking permission before doing something you think might upset someone is generally helpful, etc. But if a situation arises where those best practices would be in conflict with the general principles, the general principles take priority. And I've had that happen - I've had players who had a particular hangup about consciously knowing that metagame discussion caused things to play out differently, but at the same time actually needed some course corrections on things from time to time. When we did try talking those things out in detail in front of the group it generally didn't work out, so we had to find other ways to do it - I had to become more perceptive of signs of a dropping mood from that specific player, for one. My current group has the curious issue that basically they're sometimes too considerate of each-other to the extent that we have an Abilene paradox sort of situation with no one wanting to do anything because they're not sure if the others would be interested in being involved - and discussion tends to go very long if they try to work that out verbally.

At the end of the day 'Did you have fun? Could we have done anything differently to make it better?' is what's important, not that specific agreements were made and followed.



And I'll point out, again, that this is all very contingent upon open communication. If this was openly discussed and agreed upon, and everyone understands the rules, and everyone abides by those rules (and what appears to be a rule hierarchy as well), then that's great. But you keep tap dancing around those little details and then calling what the players are doing "cheating". Openly communicated rules and then implementation of those rules is key here. If the players are not actually saying when they use this "rule", and you are calling it "cheating" (but it's "ok"), then on some level there's some need for the players/GM to conceal what is actually going on.

If everything is actually really "ok", and everyone agrees upon the rules, and the specific action being taken is completely within those rules, then no one should have any problem saying "I'm exercising rule 12" (or whatever) and then taking the auto success. Again. I'm not saying that's *not* what's happening, but the lack of you clearly stating that as a fact makes me not help but wonder.


Specifically calling out the fudge has different consequences for table mood than just fudging.

Specific example from play, though its not about fudging dice but rather Schroedinger GMing. I had a GM who liked to take things players speculated about and make them 'actually what was going on' if they felt the players' ideas were better than what they currently had. They were upfront about the fact that they were going to do this. It would have been very different if they explicitly said out loud 'I'm going to take that idea and use it' when doing it, versus leaving it unclear whether something had always been planned that way or whether it was Schroedinger'd. Some players would hate that, but for that group it worked and was great. I would not have wanted them to announce when it was being done.

I even know this because in a later campaign with that GM my character had a power (that I didn't know that the character had, but figured it out) that sometimes what was said in-character would prompt 'roll a d10'. And if it was a 10, what my character speculated about came true. It was interesting to play (especially since my character specifically was a scientist who wanted to do honest experiments and find out what was really true, and now he had a 1 in 10 chance of forcing his hypotheses to overwrite physics), but it was a very very different experience.



Well. Technically, sure. But the "system of values" should also be that "cheating is wrong", or the actual rules and the entire concept of cheating somewhat falls apart.


That's your particular preferred value system. It's certainly not mine, so don't try to impose it by fiat!



I'll also point out that you have mentioned rules in association with "rules or protocols", and then identified a "system of values" as something different, but not actually stated how it's different or how it relates to the concept of cheating. I'm left to speculate that maybe you're just saying there's some additional factor but it's not relevant, or maybe that it is relevant and changes when cheating is "bad" (which would seem to be a core point to be made if that was the case), yet are unwilling to actually describe what you are talking about for some reason.

How is a "system of values" different than "rules and protocols", specifically as it relates to cheating? I'm assuming it has something to do with the higher level priorities you spoke of previously, but I'm forced to speculate on that front (as I was on the previous one).


An example of a rule is 'don't kill anyone'. An example of a value system might be something like 'people's agency and ability to live and pursue their own needs is to be respected and valued'. From the latter you can conclude that maybe you shouldn't kill someone. But you can also work out that there might be situations with no good choices in which killing is actually the moral choice to make. Whereas in the former system, the rule is 'don't kill anyone' and didn't give exceptions, so its rigid. The former is a deontological system, but the latter can span the space where virtue ethics and utilitarian ethics exist. In this discussion (and frequently on these forums), I commonly see the perspective of automatically assuming that everything must be deontological in nature. But its not the only sort of ethical system one can construct.

As far as how this relates to cheating, cheating to me specifically has connotations of breaking rules. Failing to uphold a virtue or making incorrect ethical choices with respect to a system of values isn't cheating, it belongs to a different term - sinning, transgressing, committing an unethical act, etc.



Yes. I'm presenting a hypothetical. I do this when someone presents a scenario and what they have written does not actually exclude the possibility of the hypothetical from being true. I don't know, nor can I know, if it is true in your case at your table, but I can't rule it out because you haven't provided enough specific detail to do so.

You have to acknowledge that while it's certainly possible that your gaming table plays the way it does because it's all good and everyone is on the same page and in agreement about the rules and follows them openly and honestly, it's also possible that the exact behavior you are describing *could* be the result of a cheating player spreading cheating to everyone else, with a GM unwilling to do anything about it, and over time just accepting it, and then well after the fact rationalizing it as "ok". I honestly don't know which is the case. But that's the point.


I mean, I explicitly told you 'this thing you think would happen didn't happen'. Those campaigns are over and done, this isn't some ongoing thing I'm speculating about. That's not to say you might not encounter the consequences of your hypothetical at your table or somewhere else. But I did the experiment, and the result was what it was. That's a higher order of evidence than what amounts to you saying 'but that's not what I think would happen'.

Nowhere in this argument am I saying 'gbaji, you have to allow cheating at your table, it'll be fine'. I'm saying 'people have these sorts of tables and it doesn't lead to the sort of disaster you're worried about, so stop insisting everyone adopt your particular values and accept that different people do things differently from you and that it can be okay'.


I don't know. And I can only post factually from a pov of what I do know. Everything else is speculation. You've left me with little to do but speculate, so you can't really be surprised when that's what I do. Maybe this is just me not understanding what you are saying, but I honestly don't have a clue how you are actually running your table,, what rules you have in place, what discussions you have had with your players about those rules, etc. Saying "there are agreements we have" isn't telling me what those agreements are and whether they actually apply to and allow for the behavior you have described. So yeah. I'm going to have to speculate and guess.

I don't really need to defend my table to you though. I do however want you to concede that other people may play the game and view it in different ways than you do, and that it can be a satisfying experience for them. If you can concede that point, then having a continuing discussion centered on explaining the parts of that which don't make sense could be productive. Or not, maybe you don't care! But I don't think it would be productive for either of us to view this as an attempt to persuade the other that one way of playing is inherently better than the other - I can tell you right now that's not going to happen.

[Quertus]

First off. I absolutely don't think that this ever really results in more "fun" by anyone. I think that some players (usually younger players) think so, but in the long run, a victory gained by cheating/fudging/whatever is not really "fun". You know you only succeeded because of the cheating. You can lie to other's but you can't lie to yourself. And ultimately, any enjoyment achieved by "success" at the gaming table will always be diminished by the knowledge that it wasn't earned fairly and by the rules.

Agreed? Which is one of the reasons why I talked about how I confronted some of the cheaters, and how I got them to change their behavior, by showing them a better way. However,



First off. I absolutely don't think that this ever really results in more "fun" by anyone. I think that some players (usually younger players) think so, but in the long run, a victory gained by cheating/fudging/whatever is not really "fun". You know you only succeeded because of the cheating. You can lie to other's but you can't lie to yourself. And ultimately, any enjoyment achieved by "success" at the gaming table will always be diminished by the knowledge that it wasn't earned fairly and by the rules.

Secondly. Just to bring this back to the original statement about players cheating on die rolls at gaming tables, can we agree that if this is the case, that one player "cheating" will lead to other players doing so as well? I mean, if it's understood that it's ok to fudge rolls as long as you aren't blatant about it, presumably the whole table knows this (or it's not a "table culture"), and presumably other players will cheat as well.

How do you get from "more mature players know that cheating isn't fun" to "therefore, they will cheat"? It really feels like you're proving my point for me ("more mature players will understand that an undeserved victory diminishes your enjoyment, and therefore won't cheat, so cheating won't spread"), then trying to reverse the logic somehow. :smallconfused::smallamused:


the influence we have on them is that different

I originally included this just for completeness, but



I would also suggest that even in class/role based game systems, the sheer abundance of class balance threads out there on the internet, in which the smallest of changes to said balance is discussed and argued about to the nth degree, would tend to disprove Quertus's assertion.

Players, as a whole, do tend to care (a lot even) about even minor effects on class balance in play. If you've ever followed such things you will encounter endless debates about whether some change that allows classA to perform classB's primary thing at 25% capability should really be only 20% (or similar). The idea that players don't care about this is just plain unsupported by the evidence.

The only scenario where I could accept what Quertus is saying is one where the entire table is so much focused on winning the encounters that they don't care if players cheat to do it. And in that scenario, the likelihood that more than just one player will actually cheat is *higher* than in the scenarios most of us were envisioning, not lower. Given that we were starting with an examination of the assumption that allowing one player to cheat will tend to lead to other players cheating as well, providing a counter where literally everyone at the table is cheating actively and encouraging everyone else to do so as well so as to maximize their odds of "success", is not a terribly good counter at all.

Sure. If that's the agreed upon rules for choosing stats in the game, then that's what's agreed on. I will note, however, that in a similar vein to the die roll cheating issue, one player engaging in min/max behavior at such a table will also tend to lead towards more min/maxing by other players. If the other players are all picking reasonable stats for their characters based on their backgrounds, intended capabilities, etc, and being mindful of ensuring that they are good at some things and not so good at others as a natural part of balance, and some guy walks in and all his characters have 20s across the board because "why not be the best I can be?", it's going to tend to put a damper on things.

These comments actually make me glad I did.

So, I try for (and generally succeed at producing some level of) the opposite table culture - where people don't care about such trivial things, where people aren't focused on "winning" (although the characters may well be, especially if "losing" and "dying" are strongly correlated), and where Not!Thor and a Sentient Potted Plant can adventure alongside more "normal" characters, because that's what everyone wanted to play.


I've never seen it either, nor do I think it would be a stable table condition

It is. At least until the cheater gains sufficient maturity to join the non-cheaters. Because why would the non-cheaters ever become less mature?


I honestly suspect that this is not really a thing that happens, but that some players may imagine it is in order to justify their own cheating (eg: "It's ok for me to fudge this die roll. I'm sure everyone does it, but just doesn't speak openly about it"). Um... no. It's not ok to do that, and no, everyone else isn't doing it. It's just you cheating. Stop doing that.

If I say, "I guess you missed how the other players taunt the cheating player for cheating", would that invalidate your line of thought? Or have I misread you?


Having said that, I'm personally of the opinion that the GM can fudge outcomes of die rolls (that failed skill roll may not be the total disaster that it could have been), but even that is not without controversy.

NEVER!

Adventuring alongside one statistical anomaly, while the remaining 99.999+% of the world is coherent? Fine. Being the only point of light and sanity in a 99.999+% incoherent world? No.

The GM cheating destroys the value of the world.

Other players cheating, however, is fine.


Such behavior has serious adverse effects on a table, even if the player doesn't think it will. And those effects will tend to spread and get worse over time. Better to nip it in the bud immediately.

It only has effects on the table if the table is immature enough to let it. And how you deal with it determines the growth trajectory of the cheater.

I aim for Kai Zen, for Improvement, for nurturing the best in all.

Which is why the cheating is allowed, but it is made obvious that the table considers it generally "not good" - but accepts that you can do it if it's what you need in order to have fun.

Or something. Me speak much goodly.

[gbaji]

@Quertus. I'm just going to say that you are still contriving absurd cases in order to support your idea that cheating doesn't spread to other players at a table.

And yes, I've already stated that Anymage should have made his statement a relative one rather than an absolute one. But to then jump on that and frame everyone else's similar argument as false because we're claiming that someone must either cheat or be ineffective is not terribly fair, nor is it terribly useful. I'm not making that argument. I'm saying something similar, but in the opposite direction:

People cheat to be more effective than they would otherwise be. That's it. Doesn't require that they be 100% ineffective if they don't cheat, nor does it mean that cheating makes them 100% effective. But it will always make them "more effective" at whatever they are doing.

And in many skill contests, they are basic "pass/fail" scenarios. Someone cheating gets the same result if they cheat to make a low probability skill roll succeed as someone else's character does if they have a high skill and succeed. So the idea that the other character is "so much better that it doesn't matter" just doesn't make any difference. If both succeed, then both succeed. And if the lower skilled person succeeds just as often (or more often even) then the character that put many more points into that skill, that's going to tend to have an effect on the other player. You're free to insist that it wont lead to them cheating (and it may not), but everything else being the same, if we also have an environment where that second player realizes that the GM is just allowing this behavior? That player is more likely to decide to start cheating than he would otherwise.

It's all a matter of degrees, not absolutes.



People do play things like tournament games, Dungeon Crawl Classics modules, and the like where the point of the experience is the difficulty. That is different from things in which there are dangerous things or high stakes, but where difficulty is not essential to the integrity of the activity. Neither of these is the same as playing 'in order to roll a save vs death'.

I'd still say that the challenges are obstacles to overcome on the way to obtaining the objective (complete the dungeon, find the most flags, defeat the most bad guys, etc). But, sure. Let's chalk that up to a misunderstanding of terminology.

In either case, we are both speaking of games where success or failure of a die roll in overcoming a challenge has an effect on the outcome of the game, right? What we call it doesn't matter. That roll and whether it succeeds or fails does matter, or we can assume the player has no need to cheat, right? Even if the outcome difference is "we defeat the necromancer with no losses" versus "we defeat the necromancer but one of our own died in the effort", that's clearly a difference, and it's also clearly a difference that mattered to the player who chose to cheat.


The test that is relevant to a discussion of cheating is - is the point of the game defeated if someone cheats? You can absolutely have a game in which save vs death is a thing that can occur, but also in which having that save arbitrarily get bypassed does not defeat the point of the game. Just like you can have a game with a villain who monologues but the game is not necessarily ruined by sneak-attacking the villain and interrupting the monologue.

If the point of the game is to overcome whatever obstacles are in that game by playing your character based on the values on the sheet and the rules of the game, then yes, cheating does defeat the point of the game. In precisely the same way that cheating at cards does. The objective isn't simply to "win", but to "win by building the best hand, taking the most tricks, or whatever, based on the rules we all agree to". If your player is "winning" by cheating, then that player has defeated the entire purpose of all of us sitting down to play in the first place.


Games can contain things which are not central to the purpose of the game. Thus not challenge-centric.

Ok. But now you're back to using that term the way I was using it. Is this a case where challenge-centric means "we're measuring the number of challenges we defeat/overcome and scoring our play that way", or "overcoming challenges in the game via die rolling our skills is what determines whether we succeed at achieving our objectives in the game". If the players have to defeat the necromancer to thwart his evil plot and save the day, and that saving throw is one of the challenges that has to be dealt with to defeat the necromancer, then (regardless of what we label it), that die roll matters to the outcome of the game scenario/session/whatever.

You're getting caught up on whether that one roll is "central" to the outcome. No single roll is. But all of them, collectively, are. Again, if the rolls mean anything at all. I've speculated on games in which it's 100% choices and roleplaying that determines outcomes and rolls can be just fluff or not used at all, but that doesn't seem to be what you are talking about here. Does that player making their save have an effect on the party's ability to defeat the necromancer? Yes or no? It does not need to be the absolute "we win or we lose" level effect, but if it makes things easier for the party (or even just removes the need for a resurrection after the fact), then it had an effect, and thus the cheating had an effect on the entire game.



Yes, so in terms of a conversation about whether a certain position makes sense (like 'I will ask players to save vs death, but I'm okay with them just telling me that they pass the save') these player objectives are the actual important thing. Because that's how you evaluate 'does this policy actually achieve what it's trying to do?'.

Again then. Why bother with putting the save in there in the first place? Just make a rule that "I don't require saves versus death" and move on. Heck. I've stated in a few different threads here that I avoid with all possible effort putting my players in "make this roll or die" situations. I have no issues with this at all. But that has to be the rule you follow. If you actually put a "save or die" situation in your game, you should make your player roll the die. Just don't put that in, or modify your rules so that failing doesn't actually mean death, but some other negative (but recoverable) effect (maybe it puts you in a coma for a day, so you can't recover to help out in the battle or something). There are a ton of better ways to manage this than "I'll let my players just pass a save I put in the game if they or I feel like it".




I agree the former is not cheating. The latter is. I've been at tables that have worked either way. In the specific case of a player at my table in the game where I gave tacit permission, they said outside of play that if things were spiraling for them and they were getting depressed and detached from the game, they intended to fudge rolls, which I then said 'okay that's fine' - and generally in introducing my games and table I basically establish that I'm not going to be a stickler about things like that in general. So if and when that player later fudged at the table, they did not announce that that specific roll was one they were going to fudge. That is cheating, but it is cheating with approval to do so at their own recognizance. This player also GM'd and ran their own games giving players the same flexibility to moderate their own needs.

Eh. That's a tough one. Honestly, if I were running that, I'd maybe come up with a better way to handle this. Hard to say though. I do have to question whether a player (depressed or not) is actually going to feel better about themselves as a result of fudging die rolls in a game they are playing, but that's a way bigger discussion than this thread.

I would maybe focus on a conflict light session in that case instead of going forward with a session with hard die rolls and "win/lose" situations where the player may feel they need to fudge in the first place.


So yes there was permission, but not for the specific rolls, and still secret in the case of the specific rolls.

And this is where it can be a problem. If the other players don't know what's going on (and I agree that maybe they shouldn't in this case), all they see is that playerA is cheating. Which can lead to problems. I get that some people apparently don't believe that cheating can spread at a table, but that's absolutely not something I agree with and IMO this is just going to set things up for future problems at your table going forward.


You're looking for something like a set of rules, but what I'm saying is that such things don't exist. The 'rule' is 'make sure everyone is having fun and is in a good place mentally'. How do you do that? That's up to you, there's no rule that if you follow it guarantees it, so do what is needed to make sure that priority is respected. Below that, people may want to try out or explore different things, may want to play different games or experiment with different rules or whatever - that's all fine and ideally we respect that, but it's a lower priority than fun and wellbeing.

Of course rules exist. Simple ones like "here's what you need to roll to succeed" absolutely exist. Is that really in question here?

Again, I'd shift away from allowing player chosen die roll cheating to promote "fun" to me as the GM doing a better job at handing the story, pacing, and action/resolution phases of my game to promote that fun. IME players do have the most fun when they are able to achieve what they want in the game while using the game rules to do it. There's a sense of accomplishment at that which you do not get any other way.

I think failing to apply the rules consistently is going to hurt your players enjoyment of your game in the long run.


There are things which are conducive or instrumental to upholding those values which are a sort of set of best practices - yes, communicating clearly is generally helpful, asking permission before doing something you think might upset someone is generally helpful, etc. But if a situation arises where those best practices would be in conflict with the general principles, the general principles take priority. And I've had that happen - I've had players who had a particular hangup about consciously knowing that metagame discussion caused things to play out differently, but at the same time actually needed some course corrections on things from time to time. When we did try talking those things out in detail in front of the group it generally didn't work out, so we had to find other ways to do it - I had to become more perceptive of signs of a dropping mood from that specific player, for one. My current group has the curious issue that basically they're sometimes too considerate of each-other to the extent that we have an Abilene paradox sort of situation with no one wanting to do anything because they're not sure if the others would be interested in being involved - and discussion tends to go very long if they try to work that out verbally.

It's possible that the players are uncomfortable talking about these things precisely because they know on some level that what they may want or ask for are "unfair" or "cheating". I would not be surprised if this makes for some discomfort at a table. Dunno. To be honest, I'm still sticking with the idea of adjusting game content rather than game rules if/when you want to adjust to player mood in some way. And yeah, I imagine asking players about this is going to make them uncomfortable.


Specific example from play, though its not about fudging dice but rather Schroedinger GMing. I had a GM who liked to take things players speculated about and make them 'actually what was going on' if they felt the players' ideas were better than what they currently had. They were upfront about the fact that they were going to do this. It would have been very different if they explicitly said out loud 'I'm going to take that idea and use it' when doing it, versus leaving it unclear whether something had always been planned that way or whether it was Schroedinger'd. Some players would hate that, but for that group it worked and was great. I would not have wanted them to announce when it was being done.

I even know this because in a later campaign with that GM my character had a power (that I didn't know that the character had, but figured it out) that sometimes what was said in-character would prompt 'roll a d10'. And if it was a 10, what my character speculated about came true. It was interesting to play (especially since my character specifically was a scientist who wanted to do honest experiments and find out what was really true, and now he had a 1 in 10 chance of forcing his hypotheses to overwrite physics), but it was a very very different experience.



That's your particular preferred value system. It's certainly not mine, so don't try to impose it by fiat!

That's not at all my preferred system. I would never put something like that in my game. I write the adventure. The players play in it. Yes, I may take into account what I think the players may enjoy as part of my writing process, but I would never change the scenario because of something a player said at the table. My NPCs will react to what the PCs do, but that's the extent of that flexibility.

I don't engage in "wish fulfillment fantasy" either. If a player comes up to me and has a whole character arc plotted out for his character, I'll just kinda go "you can try that, let me know what you do to try to achieve that", but I will not write things into my world to facilitate that plan. I fall back to "my NPCs will react to what the PCs do", and that's it. I've already put things in my world. The players have to figure out what to do in that environment, not the other way around.

I *also* don't allow fudging on die rolls by players. It's not an either/or scenario for me. That's just the way I run my game, and I've found that it works very well. Players know exactly what they can and can't do with their characters. There's no confusion over where the boundaries lie. And yeah, I can certainly adjust the specifics of an encounter in terms of hard/soft challenges/risks based on the current mood/whatever of the players, but honestly I've rarely found that to be needed. When the rules and play style is consistent, then the players go in knowing what to expect, so there are no shocks in that way.

My game is much more about figuring out who the bad guy is and what his plot is (puzzle solving sometimes) than it is about "can I roll well enough to succeed at this task". The latter is there, but typically has only an effect on the thing directly in front of them at the moment. They can roll nothing but perfect rolls all scenario long, but if they didn't make good decisions and actions by their characters to investigate, examine, explore, etc, then they will not succeed.

My players know this. So they know that they will not be crushed by a single bad die roll, nor only succeed on a single good die roll. Ergo, they don't need to cheat to succeed, and also don't feel like they need to "do better on die rolls" because they're feeling down that day or something.



As far as how this relates to cheating, cheating to me specifically has connotations of breaking rules. Failing to uphold a virtue or making incorrect ethical choices with respect to a system of values isn't cheating, it belongs to a different term - sinning, transgressing, committing an unethical act, etc.

Sure. Again though, we're talking about cheating on die rolls. Which is... cheating.



I mean, I explicitly told you 'this thing you think would happen didn't happen'. Those campaigns are over and done, this isn't some ongoing thing I'm speculating about. That's not to say you might not encounter the consequences of your hypothetical at your table or somewhere else. But I did the experiment, and the result was what it was. That's a higher order of evidence than what amounts to you saying 'but that's not what I think would happen'.

Nowhere in this argument am I saying 'gbaji, you have to allow cheating at your table, it'll be fine'. I'm saying 'people have these sorts of tables and it doesn't lead to the sort of disaster you're worried about, so stop insisting everyone adopt your particular values and accept that different people do things differently from you and that it can be okay'.

I'm not insisting that this will happen. I'm just providing advice to GMs on how reduce the likelihood of it happening.



I don't really need to defend my table to you though. I do however want you to concede that other people may play the game and view it in different ways than you do, and that it can be a satisfying experience for them. If you can concede that point, then having a continuing discussion centered on explaining the parts of that which don't make sense could be productive. Or not, maybe you don't care! But I don't think it would be productive for either of us to view this as an attempt to persuade the other that one way of playing is inherently better than the other - I can tell you right now that's not going to happen.

Sure. Different strokes and all that. But to be perfectly honest, some of the things you are describing that do occur at your tables I would absolutely consider a serious problem at mine (or any table I played at as well). If players are coming up to me and saying "I'm feeling a bit down today, is it ok for me to fudge my die rolls when I feel like it?", I'd be like "Um.. what? No". Cause... 100x no. That's never acceptable at my table. Ever. If you aren't feeling good, or are depressed or whatever, you can talk to me about it, and if you feel it will affect how you play or how you feel about the game I'm running I may adjust some content things to be sensitive to that, but at the end of the day I'm running a game for an entire table of players. I'm not going to let you cheat on your die rolls as some kind of bizarre coping mechanism. That's just strange and wrong for a number of reasons.

You're free to play your table as you feel fit and if that works for you and your players, then it works. I might suggest, however, that given that you seem to be encountering this sort of behavior far far more often then I ever have, and that it's putting you in the position of having to say that "well, cheating can be ok, sometimes..." on a forum like this, that maybe it's not really working as well as you think? Allowing cheating is not a normal GM position. Arguably one of the primary jobs of the GM is to enforce the rules so that all players have a fun and fair playing experience. So yeah, I'm a bit baffled by your statements and need to defend this. Again, you can run your table as you want, but maybe think on what I've said here? You might find that by creating some more consistent and firm boundaries on your players that instead of them panicking and being upset, they will actually appreciate it a lot more. Just a thought.

[NichG]

I'd still say that the challenges are obstacles to overcome on the way to obtaining the objective (complete the dungeon, find the most flags, defeat the most bad guys, etc). But, sure. Let's chalk that up to a misunderstanding of terminology.

In either case, we are both speaking of games where success or failure of a die roll in overcoming a challenge has an effect on the outcome of the game, right? What we call it doesn't matter. That roll and whether it succeeds or fails does matter, or we can assume the player has no need to cheat, right? Even if the outcome difference is "we defeat the necromancer with no losses" versus "we defeat the necromancer but one of our own died in the effort", that's clearly a difference, and it's also clearly a difference that mattered to the player who chose to cheat.

If the point of the game is to overcome whatever obstacles are in that game by playing your character based on the values on the sheet and the rules of the game, then yes, cheating does defeat the point of the game. In precisely the same way that cheating at cards does. The objective isn't simply to "win", but to "win by building the best hand, taking the most tricks, or whatever, based on the rules we all agree to". If your player is "winning" by cheating, then that player has defeated the entire purpose of all of us sitting down to play in the first place.


If you understand what I'm saying about priority systems, it should not be hard to understand that something can have an effect, but be less important than something else. When we talk about what is central to the game, as opposed to 'what is contained in the game', its about priority. Lower priority things can naturally be compromised in service of higher priority things.

That particular 'point of the game' you list is not the point of the game at every table. It might be the point of the game at your table, in which case 'no cheating' makes sense as a rule at your table. It is not for example usually the point of the game at my table. I don't care that people use the values on the sheet or the rules of the game, and 'overcoming obstacles' is relevant only as a way to create the texture and feel of the world and attach weight to things, rather than being the point of the exercise itself. Obstacles are things I can use as part of my GM-ing, but they're not essential or sacred things.



Ok. But now you're back to using that term the way I was using it. Is this a case where challenge-centric means "we're measuring the number of challenges we defeat/overcome and scoring our play that way", or "overcoming challenges in the game via die rolling our skills is what determines whether we succeed at achieving our objectives in the game". If the players have to defeat the necromancer to thwart his evil plot and save the day, and that saving throw is one of the challenges that has to be dealt with to defeat the necromancer, then (regardless of what we label it), that die roll matters to the outcome of the game scenario/session/whatever.

You're getting caught up on whether that one roll is "central" to the outcome. No single roll is. But all of them, collectively, are. Again, if the rolls mean anything at all. I've speculated on games in which it's 100% choices and roleplaying that determines outcomes and rolls can be just fluff or not used at all, but that doesn't seem to be what you are talking about here. Does that player making their save have an effect on the party's ability to defeat the necromancer? Yes or no? It does not need to be the absolute "we win or we lose" level effect, but if it makes things easier for the party (or even just removes the need for a resurrection after the fact), then it had an effect, and thus the cheating had an effect on the entire game.


No, I'm saying that the process of facing a game-mechanical rules challenge using numbers on a sheet, decisions, and random generators need not be central to the reason we sit down to play the game. Not whether it's central or not to the in-character outcome, but whether it is the actual OOC purpose for us getting together to play. At your table, again, it might be. At other tables, including mine, it isn't.



Again then. Why bother with putting the save in there in the first place? Just make a rule that "I don't require saves versus death" and move on. Heck. I've stated in a few different threads here that I avoid with all possible effort putting my players in "make this roll or die" situations. I have no issues with this at all. But that has to be the rule you follow. If you actually put a "save or die" situation in your game, you should make your player roll the die. Just don't put that in, or modify your rules so that failing doesn't actually mean death, but some other negative (but recoverable) effect (maybe it puts you in a coma for a day, so you can't recover to help out in the battle or something). There are a ton of better ways to manage this than "I'll let my players just pass a save I put in the game if they or I feel like it".


Because sometimes a player will be willing to face that save, and sometimes they won't. And they will know that better than me. Rather than simply avoiding everything that anyone might ever be not okay with on a bad day, I recognize 'its not actually that important'. That doesn't mean 'its totally irrelevant' either, but it does mean I don't have to either protect it's sanctity or be afraid to use it at all. I can use it, and someone else can say or decide 'no' for themself, and it works fine.



Eh. That's a tough one. Honestly, if I were running that, I'd maybe come up with a better way to handle this. Hard to say though. I do have to question whether a player (depressed or not) is actually going to feel better about themselves as a result of fudging die rolls in a game they are playing, but that's a way bigger discussion than this thread.

I would maybe focus on a conflict light session in that case instead of going forward with a session with hard die rolls and "win/lose" situations where the player may feel they need to fudge in the first place.

And this is where it can be a problem. If the other players don't know what's going on (and I agree that maybe they shouldn't in this case), all they see is that playerA is cheating. Which can lead to problems. I get that some people apparently don't believe that cheating can spread at a table, but that's absolutely not something I agree with and IMO this is just going to set things up for future problems at your table going forward.


Regardless of your beliefs, it did not spread at those tables. Your beliefs in the present do not override the facts of what has already happened in the past. Your agreement or not doesn't change history.

Now I completely agree that it would depend on the people involved, that you could get this sort of scenario if you had for example someone who was really hung up on dominance over the other players. I've seen players like that, and I wouldn't run games for groups with those players the same way I would run games for e.g. a table full of people who also GM and are used to thinking about the group dynamic in addition to their own needs.



Of course rules exist. Simple ones like "here's what you need to roll to succeed" absolutely exist. Is that really in question here?


Don't change the subject of the sentence. The 'rules do not exist here' was in reference to a table culture or social contract that exists as a set of understood values rather than being defined as a protocol as to what people must or must not do. That sentence was not a claim that 'there is no such thing as a rule anywhere', nor was what I was saying dependent on the sentence being read that way.



Again, I'd shift away from allowing player chosen die roll cheating to promote "fun" to me as the GM doing a better job at handing the story, pacing, and action/resolution phases of my game to promote that fun. IME players do have the most fun when they are able to achieve what they want in the game while using the game rules to do it. There's a sense of accomplishment at that which you do not get any other way.

I think failing to apply the rules consistently is going to hurt your players enjoyment of your game in the long run.

It's possible that the players are uncomfortable talking about these things precisely because they know on some level that what they may want or ask for are "unfair" or "cheating". I would not be surprised if this makes for some discomfort at a table. Dunno. To be honest, I'm still sticking with the idea of adjusting game content rather than game rules if/when you want to adjust to player mood in some way. And yeah, I imagine asking players about this is going to make them uncomfortable.

That's not at all my preferred system. I would never put something like that in my game. I write the adventure. The players play in it. Yes, I may take into account what I think the players may enjoy as part of my writing process, but I would never change the scenario because of something a player said at the table. My NPCs will react to what the PCs do, but that's the extent of that flexibility.

I don't engage in "wish fulfillment fantasy" either. If a player comes up to me and has a whole character arc plotted out for his character, I'll just kinda go "you can try that, let me know what you do to try to achieve that", but I will not write things into my world to facilitate that plan. I fall back to "my NPCs will react to what the PCs do", and that's it. I've already put things in my world. The players have to figure out what to do in that environment, not the other way around.

I *also* don't allow fudging on die rolls by players. It's not an either/or scenario for me. That's just the way I run my game, and I've found that it works very well. Players know exactly what they can and can't do with their characters. There's no confusion over where the boundaries lie. And yeah, I can certainly adjust the specifics of an encounter in terms of hard/soft challenges/risks based on the current mood/whatever of the players, but honestly I've rarely found that to be needed. When the rules and play style is consistent, then the players go in knowing what to expect, so there are no shocks in that way.

My game is much more about figuring out who the bad guy is and what his plot is (puzzle solving sometimes) than it is about "can I roll well enough to succeed at this task". The latter is there, but typically has only an effect on the thing directly in front of them at the moment. They can roll nothing but perfect rolls all scenario long, but if they didn't make good decisions and actions by their characters to investigate, examine, explore, etc, then they will not succeed.

My players know this. So they know that they will not be crushed by a single bad die roll, nor only succeed on a single good die roll. Ergo, they don't need to cheat to succeed, and also don't feel like they need to "do better on die rolls" because they're feeling down that day or something.


Nowhere have I tried to say you can't run things your way or that your way of running things is wrong. Your way is probably correct for what it is you want to do and the attitudes and needs of the people you regularly play with. You are absolutely welcome to run games differently than other people! But it's also useful to recognize that other people are welcome to run games differently than you. And that they aren't 'wrong' or 'doing it worse' just because they've prioritized different things or are exploring spaces of play that are uninteresting (or simply unfamiliar) to you.

I certainly have GM-ing habits by now, but by recognizing as much as I can how wide the set of ways people think about and experience games can be, that gives me the flexibility to run in a lot of different ways if I want to, or if the group or the game calls for it. It's useful to not be so rigid in assumptions like 'the purpose of the game is to overcome obstacles with values on the character sheet', because once you can understand alternatives there's a lot of really mind-warping stuff you can pull on to shape a really unique game experience.

If you like, you can even use that kind of thing to construct games in which it is literally impossible to cheat in a meaningful way. The players all get omnipotent deities for characters and what matters is 'how powerful do you choose to be?' rather than 'can you actually succeed?'. I've run something like that, where the only thing holding the game together was that the players did not think of destroying it, or care to do so. And it worked well enough that it was the requested system for the next campaign I'm running for my group.



Sure. Again though, we're talking about cheating on die rolls. Which is... cheating.


Yes that was my original point to PhoenixPhyre. You can cheat on die rolls without violating the social contract or table culture. In PhoenixPhyre's original post they were arguing that if the table culture permitted that sort of dice roll modification, it was by definition not cheating. I disagreed.

[icefractal]

When the table rules are that the GM can fake die rolls, we generally call it "fudging", not "allowed cheating". So that's what I'd call it for the players as well - fudging. GM-only fudging is a lot more common than "anyone can fudge rolls", but there's nothing inherently invalid about the latter.

But that said, I don't think I like the idea of "some players are allowed to fudge, others aren't told that it's an option". Like, I don't think it needs to be announced every time, but if fudging is ok then that should be part of the house rules that the players are informed about.

Because really - how do you know that the player who you gave permission to fudge was the only player who wanted to do so? Maybe one of the other players was also having a bad time and would have rather fudged a roll, but thought that doing so would be a betrayal of the group. By making fudging a stated thing rather than a secret agreement, they would have known it was ok.

That does leave the case of "What if I have one player who wants to fudge rolls, and another player who's against doing so on principle?" To which I'd say - that case is a problem waiting to happen anyway, and it's probably better to get it hashed out at the start instead of exploding later.

[Quertus]

@Quertus. I'm just going to say that you are still contriving absurd cases in order to support your idea that cheating doesn't spread to other players at a table.


I’m not “contriving absurd cases”, I’m reporting what I’ve experienced irl (filtered with poetic license to make it match the “we’re playing twin Rogues, and you’re cheating your rolls” scenario), to ask you the question you keep dodging: what part of that should have enticed me to cheat?


GM-only fudging is a lot more common than "anyone can fudge rolls", but there's nothing inherently invalid about the latter.

Whereas I’m still trying to promote, “only non-GM players can fudge rolls”.


I don't think I like the idea of "some players are allowed to fudge, others aren't told that it's an option".

And where are you even getting this idea from? If anyone’s suggested it, I missed it.

[Tanarii]

When the table rules are that the GM can fake die rolls, we generally call it "fudging", not "allowed cheating". So that's what I'd call it for the players as well - fudging. GM-only fudging is a lot more common than "anyone can fudge rolls", but there's nothing inherently invalid about the latter.Seriously tho, DM or Player "fudging" is it's almost never a table rule. It's just something that do, and usually try hide. So yeah, agreed it needs to be explicit.

If a DM told me there was a DM or Player fudging rule, I'd probably want to know the details when it was acceptable, mainly to get a horrified look into the mind of how such a person thinks, and also expect to see that yes in fact they hadn't really thought it through and didn't have any such details. And then I'd thank them for warning me so I could never play at their heavily house-ruled table.

[kyoryu]

It's funny because, as usual, 95% of the conversation about fudging comes down to "character death bad."

So why are you playing in a system where character death is a product of dice rolls, rather than being something that at least one person has to opt into?

If you're having to bypass the dice, there's some level of system mismatch.

[Reversefigure4]

I’m not “contriving absurd cases”, I’m reporting what I’ve experienced irl (filtered with poetic license to make it match the “we’re playing twin Rogues, and you’re cheating your rolls” scenario), to ask you the question you keep dodging: what part of that should have enticed me to cheat?

The old childhood axiom: Anything you can do I can do better, I can do anything better than you!

I'm the Cheating Rogue, you're the Straight Rogue. Anything you accomplish, I can also do, but better. While I'm fighting off all the orcs single-handedly, you go off to seduce the Princess. But then I can run across the castle - because I'm cheating, and have declared my movement speed to be 20x yours - reach her first, and seduce her better with my +700 Diplomacy skill. If there's treasure, I'll find it, not you. If there's an NPC to talk to, better let me do it, since I have +900 Bluff to your +2. In a combat, I will kill 300 Orcs before you can finish damaging 1 to death, since I roll 400 average damage each time. If I feel like it, I'll let you kill that 1 orc so you can feel like you did something, but it's pretty obvious I could have taken him too.

My game is entirely proactive. I can accomplish anything. There's nothing you can do to stop me. Your game is reactive. You need to stay out of my way, or just cheerlead me from the sideline. You don't get to define what happens unless I choose to allow you.

If I'm not an asshat, I'll allow you moments to shine in your own way. But if I am an asshat who is allowed to cheat, you're only permitted to play a very specific kind of game - the kind I allow. And your character is always redundant, since anything you can do I can do better. You're a warm body. It doesn't make any difference if you're a Rogue or a Wizard or a Barmaid or a Potted Plant, since I can sneak, cast better spells, and bartend better than you anyway. It's possible you're happy with that sort of game, but most people are going to wonder why I'm allowed to declare whatever numbers I like and they aren't. Most games don't centre around Amazing Man and the sidekick who is allowed to carry his torch.

You might start cheating in response. Most likely, you'll just stop playing with me because I'm an asshat. Or we'll change to a narrative system with no dice to cheat from, or some sort of systemless game where we get to declare one fact true every 10 minutes of play. Or we agree that we're all OK with a system where I'm Incredible Rogue and you're my bumbling sidekick, dragged through the adventure by my sheer brilliance - but most game systems and campaign structures are not set up to play that sort of thing.

Thor and the Potted Plant is an exception, not how games are default expected to work. All characters are supposed to have mechanical and narrative competencies, contributing to whatever the game's story is in a vaguely equal fashion. If my niche is 'Fight Guy' and I kill everything in the combat, and your niche is Rich Guy, and you hobnob with the nobles to get the King's blessing, that might be narratively and mechanically of similar weight. But not if my fight scene takes 3 hours of gametime, and your hobnobbing takes 10 minutes, or viceversa. But if half the session is social and half of it fight, that's probably fine.

Cheating throws out that balance entirely out the window, however, since with a few pencil marks Fight Guy shows up at the King's Ball with social skills far higher than Rich Guys, and 1 million spare gold pieces in his pants.

[Quertus]

because I'm cheating, and have declared my movement speed to be 20x yours

If there's an NPC to talk to, better let me do it, since I have +900 Bluff to your +2.

These (plus many others) represent a failure to remember (or notice) context. For reference, the context at this point was identical Rogues, and cheating on die rolls. So your response really isn’t relevant to whether cheating on die rolls will entice others to cheat, even if the players are playing identical Rogues.

[False God]

It's funny because, as usual, 95% of the conversation about fudging comes down to "character death bad."

So why are you playing in a system where character death is a product of dice rolls, rather than being something that at least one person has to opt into?

If you're having to bypass the dice, there's some level of system mismatch.

Well sure in a world with infinite choice and perfect knowledge we can always find tables playing the game we want with people who also play the way we want. But realistically most people are making compromises on their perfect table to find some kind of gaming at all and the players they're playing with are an unknown.

Also the primary TTRPG on the market is seemingly hell-bent on leaning as far into LOLRANDOM! as possible, particularly at low levels.

[NichG]

Well sure in a world with infinite choice and perfect knowledge we can always find tables playing the game we want with people who also play the way we want. But realistically most people are making compromises on their perfect table to find some kind of gaming at all and the players they're playing with are an unknown.

Also the primary TTRPG on the market is seemingly hell-bent on leaning as far into LOLRANDOM! as possible, particularly at low levels.

Also there's an OOC risk/reward trade-off in GMing, where there's interesting gaming to explore as experiences get more intense and as players get more invested, but the margin between great and terrible becomes narrower and it's more likely that things the GM doesn't or can't know can determine what side of the edge you land on. So remembering that the game isn't the important thing becomes more essential as well. Attaching stigmas to people using release valves in such cases is something I'd be very careful about.

[Tanarii]

It's funny because, as usual, 95% of the conversation about fudging comes down to "character death bad."
Fortunately this attitudes is finally starting to ebb after it's D&D 2e high. But the idea that DMs can and should "fudge" still seems to hold sway with more DMs than it doesn't. It can make finding a table for those who want to let the dice fall as they may rather difficult.

What's really crazy to me is this holds true even in WotC 5e official play. In which house rules aren't supposed to run rampant, and the game is heavily designed so that character death is unlikely without serious player mistakes. And in some seasons, dying just means not get rewards for the current session. (Dying in homebrew CaW is much easier than WotCs CaS official play.)

[Reversefigure4]

These (plus many others) represent a failure to remember (or notice) context. For reference, the context at this point was identical Rogues, and cheating on die rolls. So your response really isn’t relevant to whether cheating on die rolls will entice others to cheat, even if the players are playing identical Rogues.

So we're positing that Rogue A freely cheats on his dice rolls, claiming 20s whenever he feels like, but that the table is fine with this because he'll never cheat any further than this, for some reason? He's decided any dice changing is fine, but that faking, say, his hit points, is morally wrong?

That does reduce some of the niche stealing, since he'll never be able to cast spells and take the Wizards stick... But in most systems, it's hard to not be outshone by some who can generate the highest dice value possible freely. While he won't be casting spells, most versions of DnD will see the Rogue auto hit every opponent, outshining the Fighter (as well as out-saving-throwing the Monk, out skilling characters until they reach high enough level skill points outstrip the dice). In a system like Call of Cthulhu (% roll under), our dice cheat can succeed at any given roll in the game, meaning other characters in the Investigator team can achieve only those things he allows them to succeed at. In Savage Worlds, exploding dice can generate infinitely high results. In Fate, PC skills often go from 1 to 4, with dice results between -4 and +4 with a heavy average towards +0, so a dice cheat will equal skill experts on his amazing constant +4 dice alone.

[Quertus]

So we're positing that Rogue A freely cheats on his dice rolls, claiming 20s whenever he feels like, but that the table is fine with this because he'll never cheat any further than this, for some reason? He's decided any dice changing is fine, but that faking, say, his hit points, is morally wrong?

That does reduce some of the niche stealing, since he'll never be able to cast spells and take the Wizards stick... But in most systems, it's hard to not be outshone by some who can generate the highest dice value possible freely. While he won't be casting spells, most versions of DnD will see the Rogue auto hit every opponent, outshining the Fighter (as well as out-saving-throwing the Monk, out skilling characters until they reach high enough level skill points outstrip the dice). In a system like Call of Cthulhu (% roll under), our dice cheat can succeed at any given roll in the game, meaning other characters in the Investigator team can achieve only those things he allows them to succeed at. In Savage Worlds, exploding dice can generate infinitely high results. In Fate, PC skills often go from 1 to 4, with dice results between -4 and +4 with a heavy average towards +0, so a dice cheat will equal skill experts on his amazing constant +4 dice alone.

Cheating at die rolls is the exclusive type of cheating under discussion; I’m not a licensed therapist, nor do I play one in an RPG, so I’ll not hazard a guess as to why a player would cheat exclusively in that way. But that’s the example that was given, that’s the context for this conversation.

For the rest, my response is pretty much, “Yes, and?”. For context, I’m a grognard who hails from the days when level 1 characters and level 20 characters adventured together in the same party.

I’ll admit that CoC and Fate are more vulnerable to die cheating than D&D (where the Rogue should outshine the Fighter in combat, even without cheating). But, still, so what? My character isn’t “the pilot” or “the Fighter” or some similar definition by niche, he’s Batman, orphaned millionaire who hates guns and scares and beats up criminals as an obsessive hobby. He’s Batman, regardless of who you are. If you’re the pilot of the party? Great. If you’re Superman? Great. I’m still Batman.

(I’ve intentionally ignored talking about investigation, as that’s often Player skills… and also the big reason why, actually me, maybe my character isn’t Batman. So bad choice, maybe. Shrug.)

In almost any normal system, so long as the GM is even half-way competent (so, maybe half the GM’s I’ve had?), it doesn’t matter what your character does (*cough* Angel summoner *cough*), I still get the same amount of time / number of turns / whatever to take actions, and, in those actions, if I’ve built the character correctly, and can play the character correctly, I’m Batman. Regardless of who anyone else is.

And, yeah, this holds true when you replace “Batman” with any other character… especially or, at least, any character *I* can actually play.

[Reversefigure4]

Cheating at die rolls is the exclusive type of cheating under discussion; I’m not a licensed therapist, nor do I play one in an RPG, so I’ll not hazard a guess as to why a player would cheat exclusively in that way. But that’s the example that was given, that’s the context for this conversation.

For the rest, my response is pretty much, “Yes, and?”. For context, I’m a grognard who hails from the days when level 1 characters and level 20 characters adventured together in the same party.

I’ll admit that CoC and Fate are more vulnerable to die cheating than D&D (where the Rogue should outshine the Fighter in combat, even without cheating). But, still, so what? My character isn’t “the pilot” or “the Fighter” or some similar definition by niche, he’s Batman, orphaned millionaire who hates guns and scares and beats up criminals as an obsessive hobby. He’s Batman, regardless of who you are. If you’re the pilot of the party? Great. If you’re Superman? Great. I’m still Batman.

(I’ve intentionally ignored talking about investigation, as that’s often Player skills… and also the big reason why, actually me, maybe my character isn’t Batman. So bad choice, maybe. Shrug.)

In almost any normal system, so long as the GM is even half-way competent (so, maybe half the GM’s I’ve had?), it doesn’t matter what your character does (*cough* Angel summoner *cough*), I still get the same amount of time / number of turns / whatever to take actions, and, in those actions, if I’ve built the character correctly, and can play the character correctly, I’m Batman. Regardless of who anyone else is.

And, yeah, this holds true when you replace “Batman” with any other character… especially or, at least, any character *I* can actually play.

So we're playing Savage Worlds superheroes. You're Batman, I'm Superman. I spent all my points on powers - flight, super strength, eye lasers, super breath, etc. You spent all yours on skills.

I have a d4-2 (untrained) in Stealth, Intimidation, Perception, and Athletics. Because you want to be a tiny bat god at big things, you maxed them (d12s). It's possible, but unlikely, for me to outroll you, because the system used as exploding dice (when you roll as high as you can, roll and add another die, which might also explode...). In a normal campaign, Superman might outsneak Batman once or twice by sheer fluke.

In cheat land, I beat you every time, because you roll an average on 6.5, and I roll 8 explosions for routine totals of 20+. Superman can outsneak, outfight, outclimb, outflip, outthrow your Batarangs, and generally do everything Batman does but better, because I ace every roll, guaranteed. And I still have laser eyes, flight, and superspeed, because I didn't waste my points building for skills. Why would I, when it's ok to cheat whatever dice result?

Some aspects Batman I can't take away for you. You're always be an orphan (narrative). You'll always be rich (requires a feat, not a dice roll). But cheating Superman will outdo Batman at being Batman. The sorts of challenges Batman could accomplish can be done better by cheating Superman, who can succeed on anything with a dice roll.

It's possible you are quite happy with this and not inspired to cheat so that your stealth focused ninja can actually do some stealth focused ninja stuff. You're happy playing B-grade Batman while Superman proves to actually be the World's Greatest Detective, as long as you get to brood loudly. But I doubt that's the common experience. Most people want their character to be able to achieve things within their field of expertise, things that aren't overshadowed by their cheating allies.

[Quertus]

But cheating Superman will outdo Batman at being Batman.
It's possible you are quite happy with this and not inspired to cheat so that your stealth focused ninja can actually do some stealth focused ninja stuff. You're happy playing B-grade Batman while Superman proves to actually be the World's Greatest Detective, as long as you get to brood loudly. But I doubt that's the common experience. Most people want their character to be able to achieve things within their field of expertise, things that aren't overshadowed by their cheating allies.

Maybe you get dumber when (zombie) Einstein walks into the room, but I don’t. I’m still a genius, even if I’m in the same room as Einstein. Batman doesn’t change when he’s teamed up with Super Ninja Man - he’s still Batman, not “B-grade Batman”. Anything he could do before, he can still do. Regardless of whether someone else can do it better.

1st level Quertus was still 1st level Quertus, even if there was a 20th level Wizard in the party. Batman is still Batman, regardless of whether he’s teamed up with Robin, Alfred, Superman, Super Ninja Man, Spider-Man, or Aunt May.

And I’m telling the story of Batman.

[JNAProductions]

“I personally don’t care, so clearly it’s not an issue.”

Have some empathy for others. Even if you’re accurate in your words, your position isn’t one shared by most of the rest of the player base.

[Reversefigure4]

1st level Quertus was still 1st level Quertus, even if there was a 20th level Wizard in the party. Batman is still Batman, regardless of whether he’s teamed up with Robin, Alfred, Superman, Super Ninja Man, Spider-Man, or Aunt May.

Certainly if you routinely play at tables with vast narrative and mechanical power differences between the PCs with no problems, then dice cheating will be far less of an issue - it's no more of an issue than having epic characters at the table with 1st level ones, or having Superman and Dirt Farmer both as PCs. If you're already accepting characters can be made and played with vastly different power levels, then "my dice always roll max" is just another power.

But this doesn't represent a standard table, or most systems. If you want this sort of thing, then more narrative systems like Cortex Plus might serve better (designed to have Superman and Jimmy Olsen contributing to the story equally).

Would you agree that for the average table and average system, one player cheating is a problem?

[Quertus]

Certainly if you routinely play at tables with vast narrative and mechanical power differences between the PCs with no problems, then dice cheating will be far less of an issue - it's no more of an issue than having epic characters at the table with 1st level ones, or having Superman and Dirt Farmer both as PCs. If you're already accepting characters can be made and played with vastly different power levels, then "my dice always roll max" is just another power.

But this doesn't represent a standard table, or most systems. If you want this sort of thing, then more narrative systems like Cortex Plus might serve better (designed to have Superman and Jimmy Olsen contributing to the story equally).

Would you agree that for the average table and average system, one player cheating is a problem?

In my 40 years of experience? No. In the borrowed existence of others? Yes.

That said, the reasons why others have a problem is, afaict, because they lack the skills to make it not a problem. They cannot conceptualize how to contribute or have fun when there is any power disparity whatsoever, and blame their lack of fun on the lack of “razor’s edge, perfect to the nearest micron” mechanical balance, not realizing that numerous factors, like player skill, genre savviness, knowledge:GM, and just dumb luck might be responsible for throwing balance out the window, rather than Monk being OP.

And then, because they’ve no experience with responding to a problem by building themselves up, they explode childishly whenever anything doesn’t go their way, and try to tear everyone else down.

Sounds like Talakeal’s Table? Maybe I wasn’t describing the average. (Although, with the number of times I’ve heard about Talakeal’s Table, maybe I was.) Any guesses why I’m bothering going through such effort to advocate the opposite approach?


“I personally don’t care, so clearly it’s not an issue.”

Have some empathy for others. Even if you’re accurate in your words, your position isn’t one shared by most of the rest of the player base.

No, first I have to prove how I didn’t have an issue, and how many tables I’ve been at didn’t have an issue, to the incredulous masses. Then I can ask them, “why would you have had an issue with it?”, couched in “why do you think I would have had an issue with it?”. Which, of course, got completely ignored. Because no one has been interested in having a productive conversation.

[JNAProductions]

Why is it problematic?

Let's use Reversefigure's example. One player is Superman-loaded up with lots of superpowers, but unskilled at most things. The other is Batman-no superpowers at all, but highly skilled.

In a game without cheating, Batman will routinely be able to better use skills than Superman. Batman will sneak better, investigate better, deduce better, etc. But Superman has access to things like flight, super strength, and laser eyes-things Batman simply cannot do at all. Occasionally, flukes of the dice will allow Superman to equal or even surpass Batman at whatever skill is most appropriate-but by and large, Batman gets to be strong where they invested, Superman gets to be strong where they invested. Player choices are rewarded appropriately.

In a game with cheating, Superman might not always outskill Batman, but whenever the chips are down, suddenly Superman is just as skilled as Batman-while still being able to fly, while still being super strong, while still having laser eyes. Superman gets to have the same rewards as Batman, plus more, despite not having invested where Batman did.

I'm not saying you HAVE to be upset that the game is, in this situation, incredibly unfair. But your implication that people should just deal with it and shouldn't be upset that they're routinely outshone by someone who didn't invest their expertise is pretty callous.

[kyoryu]

In a game without cheating, Batman will routinely be able to better use skills than Superman. Batman will sneak better, investigate better, deduce better, etc. But Superman has access to things like flight, super strength, and laser eyes-things Batman simply cannot do at all. Occasionally, flukes of the dice will allow Superman to equal or even surpass Batman at whatever skill is most appropriate-but by and large, Batman gets to be strong where they invested, Superman gets to be strong where they invested. Player choices are rewarded appropriately.


Quertus,

Talking about razor-edge balance is a strawman here, as this is the real issue.

In general, RPG character creation gives you the opportunity to say "this is what I want to be good at, and this is what I don't care about being good at."

So if you're creating a "big fighter" type character, you expect to be good at giving and taking hits (I think that's a horribly limited view of fighters, but we'll accept the simplification for now).

The wizard invests in "doing cool stuff" and "making big booms infrequently", to again oversimplify.

So what I expect is that when it comes to "hitting with a stick" the fighter does it better. When it comes to "getting hit with a stick" the fighter does it better. When it comes to "making big booms" the wizard should do it better, as well as "doing general crazy stuff".

Looking at just one category (getting hit with a stick), it doesn't matter as much how much better the fighter is. But he should be better. It's not a matter of "well, the wizard is taking 52.4% of the damage the fighter is, and should only be taking 52.2% of the damage. That's ridiculous.

What does matter, to a lot of people, is if the wizard is taking 200% of what the fighter is.

And, especially, since one of the standard unspoken agreements of tabletop games is "you don't cheat your dice rolls, unless maybe you're the GM and you do it for the good of the party" (though some would disagree strongly with the latter part of that).

But it's not about micro-thin levels of balance. That's a strawman that nobody claimed. It's about macro-level balance at the core. So please stop claiming people are making that argument.

[JNAProductions]

I... I don't think I was talking about precise balance.

Like, the example was two characters with vastly different foci. Going off Reverse's post, Supes is rolling 1d4-2 for most things, while Bats is rolling 1d12. Max values explode, but to even hit a 6, Supes would have to roll a 4 twice, for a 1/16 chance of meeting the lower side of Bats' average.

[kyoryu]

I... I don't think I was talking about precise balance.

Like, the example was two characters with vastly different foci. Going off Reverse's post, Supes is rolling 1d4-2 for most things, while Bats is rolling 1d12. Max values explode, but to even hit a 6, Supes would have to roll a 4 twice, for a 1/16 chance of meeting the lower side of Bats' average.

No, I'm agreeing with you. What you're tlaking about is the point. "Precise" balance, as defined by Quertus, isn't. I'll edit to make that clear.

My apologies for the confusion. I just quoted you because I thought you had said it extremely well.

[JNAProductions]

No, I'm agreeing with you. What you're tlaking about is the point. "Precise" balance, as defined by Quertus, isn't. I'll edit to make that clear.

My apologies for the confusion. I just quoted you because I thought you had said it extremely well.

Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarity. :)

[Talakeal]

In general, RPG character creation gives you the opportunity to say "this is what I want to be good at, and this is what I don't care about being good at."


Or, in my players case, "this is what I want to be good at, and this is what I insist will never come up or I will assume the DM is out to get me and react accordingly."

[kyoryu]

Or, in my players case, "this is what I want to be good at, and this is what I insist will never come up or I will assume the DM is out to get me and react accordingly."

:smallbiggrin:

I think we can start discussions assuming your tables exist in some bizarre parallel alternate dimension.

[Talakeal]

:smallbiggrin:

I think we can start discussions assuming your tables exist in some bizarre parallel alternate dimension.

What do you mean start?

Glyphstone coined the phrase bizarro world years ago.

:smallsmile:

[Quertus]

Quertus,

Talking about razor-edge balance is a strawman here, as this is the real issue.

So what I expect is that when it comes to "hitting with a stick" the fighter does it better. When it comes to "getting hit with a stick" the fighter does it better. When it comes to "making big booms" the wizard should do it better, as well as "doing general crazy stuff".

What does matter, to a lot of people, is if the wizard is taking 200% of what the fighter is.

But it's not about micro-thin levels of balance. That's a strawman that nobody claimed. It's about macro-level balance at the core. So please stop claiming people are making that argument.

Well put. But wrong on several points. Or wrong several times on one point, perhaps.

So, just in the thread on this conversation, there’s been several comments like this:

I would also suggest that even in class/role based game systems, the sheer abundance of class balance threads out there on the internet, in which the smallest of changes to said balance is discussed and argued about to the nth degree, would tend to disprove Quertus's assertion.

Plus an appeal to discuss the extremely contrived scenario of

Let's take two rogues. They have identical skills.

That is ridiculously unlikely to occur at actual tables, and only makes sense as a theory-crafting example for extreme balance purposes.

So it’s false to say that such hasn’t come up, no?

Then there’s my experiences irl, and my second-hand experiences talking to others, all of which suggest that “balance” is the absolute dumbest thing to… ahem. What I mean to say is, that there is a strong correlation between “extent to which one cares about balance” and “difficulty one has coming up with solutions to this class of problem”.

Which I think agrees with you? I think you could reword it to say, the more one cares about micro balance, the more of these macro-balance problems one will have, as “balance” is highly fragile, and thrown off by… where’s that short list? By

Cheating makes the character more effective
Better Build makes the character more effective
Player Skill makes the character more effective
Simple Luck makes the character more effective
Knowledge:GM makes the character more effective
Adventure Synergy makes the character more effective
Teamwork makes the character more effective
Genre Savviness makes the character more effective
Reading the Module makes the character more effective
Getting Advice Online makes the character more effective
Metagaming makes the character more effective
Not being exhausted after work makes the character more effective
Aiming for Determinator effectiveness over Roleplaying makes the character more effective
Planning makes the character more effective
Preparing makes the character more effective


Oh, and let's not forget, it being something that the character is good at makes the character more effective.

To name a few.

Give me 1st and 20th level characters adventuring together, played by players with the player skill to do the things I’ve been talking about, over modern balance-crazed players with no concept how to make the game work any day.

And note that the 1st level Fighter is looking at 10ish HP (or maybe only 1 HP in 2e and earlier), whereas the 20th level Wizard is looking at dozens of hundreds of HP, protected by magical items, better saves, etc. Which amounts to much more than that “taking 200% of what the fighter is.” that you were so worried about.

So, that’s the level of skill at macro-balance I’m talking about, where your 200% is shrugged off as inconsequential.

If I’m playing… Tanjiro Kamado, starting out? I’m still Tanjiro Kamado, regardless of who I’m working with. That’s the type of macro-balance mindset I’m asking others to evaluate, directly, or indirectly via, “why do you believe I would cheat in this scenario?”

What you’re balancing isn’t “fiddly little numbers”, it’s the bigger ticket items, like, “do I get to tell this character’s story?”, “am I getting to play the game, to make meaningful choices?”, and “am I participating in the group story?”. To name a few.

[JNAProductions]

You should have fun with that, Quertus. If that's what you enjoy, go nuts.
But you should also acknowledge that most people want their character to feel expert relative to even the other PCs, in their areas of expertise.

Most players, when they sit down to play a game, want to play as a party of equals, more or less. They don't want to be a Commoner 2 in a party of a Wizard 18, Fighter 4/Barbarian 1/Various Prestige Classes 12, and a Druid 20. They probably don't even want to be a Fighter 20 in a part of an Archivist 20, Druid 20, and Psion 20; owing to 3.5's bad balance.

There CAN be circumstances where there's large differences in power between PCs. The Smallville RPG, if I recall correctly, is designed more for relationships and drama, so despite Superman being... Well, Superman, someone else playing Jimmy Olsen is perfectly fine-because the narrative impact is similar.

Again-if you don't mind playing as someone who's vastly weaker than the other PCs, even in your areas of expertise, that's fine. Enjoy it. But don't treat your personal experience and preferences as universal.

[Quixotic1]

To address the OP, I think that metagaming is...fine?

I mean. I don't like it. But I think that pretty much any attempt to prevent players from using their knowledge that their characters might not posess leads to situations as arbitrary and cumbersome as those we try to avoid.

I think the D&D troll is a great example. If your players try to break out the fire and acid right away and you go, "hey! Your *characters* don't know that about trolls!", then...what happens next? You force them to go through a couple rounds of combat before you decide they notice their attacks aren't effective, then let them roll or something?
I don't know. If that's what a GM needs to do to keep an encounter challenging, then they need to build more challenging encounters.

It's not worth the headache from any angle. If a player knows stuff, their character can know it, too. It's not a big deal.

But what you describe is just icky. I think it's reasonable to say that the only books at the table are the GMs. Keeps things running smoothly and avoids this situation all together.

[kyoryu]

Well put. But wrong on several points. Or wrong several times on one point, perhaps.

Your entire point is strawmen, ad hominems, and a shocking lack of respect for the agency and boundaries of others.

I think the usefulness of this conversation is other.

[Reversefigure4]

Most players, when they sit down to play a game, want to play as a party of equals, more or less. They don't want to be a Commoner 2 in a party of a Wizard 18, Fighter 4/Barbarian 1/Various Prestige Classes 12, and a Druid 20. They probably don't even want to be a Fighter 20 in a part of an Archivist 20, Druid 20, and Psion 20; owing to 3.5's bad balance.

There CAN be circumstances where there's large differences in power between PCs. The Smallville RPG, if I recall correctly, is designed more for relationships and drama, so despite Superman being... Well, Superman, someone else playing Jimmy Olsen is perfectly fine-because the narrative impact is similar.

Again-if you don't mind playing as someone who's vastly weaker than the other PCs, even in your areas of expertise, that's fine. Enjoy it. But don't treat your personal experience and preferences as universal.

In fact, most superhero RPGs actively try and sell themselves on the idea that System X does a good job of balancing Hawkeye and Thor in the same party without one of them overshadowing the other, so it clearly is a problem that people feel like needs addressing. (The Smallville RPG, which does the opposite, still pitches itself on the idea that Superman and Jimmy Olsen have the same narrative dramatic weight).

RPG systems, of course, don't sell themselves on the idea of "this system works well even if one player cheats madly!", because it's very hard to build any sort of system around that. I haven't seen any that pitch themselves as "Teaches you the player skills you need to play a level 2 commoner next to your level 20 wizard buddy", which does suggest there isn't much of a market for it.

[Anymage]

What you’re balancing isn’t “fiddly little numbers”, it’s the bigger ticket items, like, “do I get to tell this character’s story?”, “am I getting to play the game, to make meaningful choices?”, and “am I participating in the group story?”. To name a few.

Getting to tell your character's story and make meaningful choices within the game are contingent on not being regularly overshadowed, and on not bleeding out during your first combat. Both are closely tied to game balance. It's possible for a group to make a functioning dynamic while the system gets in the way, but that doesn't mean that extra strain on the system is a desirable thing.

[Talakeal]

Getting to tell your character's story and make meaningful choices within the game are contingent on not being regularly overshadowed, and on not bleeding out during your first combat. Both are closely tied to game balance. It's possible for a group to make a functioning dynamic while the system gets in the way, but that doesn't mean that extra strain on the system is a desirable thing.

I have a very similar criticism about the argument that the solution to fixing martial caster disparity is to restrict martials to low level play; its hard to play Conan or Aragorn or King Arthur when you are just a big fish in a small pond and can only change the world or accomplish great deeds because the actual cool people in the setting can't be bothered to get involved.

[kyoryu]

I have a very similar criticism about people the argument that the solution to fixing martial caster disparity is to restrict martials to low level play; its hard to play Conan or Aragorn or King Arthur when you are just a big fish in a small pond and can only change the world or accomplish great deeds because the actual cool people in the setting can't be bothered to get involved.

Any dismissal of a criticism of "well, that's not a problem for me" leaves me really cool. Like, okay, that's not a thing you care about, but that doesn't mean that people that do care about it are wrong, and we can still accurately say "yes, that system/idea doesn't work very well if you care about <x>".

I mean, really, that's the key of game selection, and really game design, ain't it? Figuring out which things you do care about, and then finding/making a system that supports those things well.

[Quertus]

But you should also acknowledge that most people want their character to feel expert relative to even the other PCs, in their areas of expertise.


Once again, Player skills. In this case, of choosing an RPG with niche protection. Or one without bounded accuracy. Or the social skills to put such in the social contact, and work through methods of testing and enforcement / error correction.


Getting to tell your character's story and make meaningful choices within the game are contingent on not being regularly overshadowed, and on not bleeding out during your first combat.

I’ll (mostly) grant the second, but Robin’s story has being overshadowed by Batman as a central theme. As do many “rivalry” stories. Or Mulan. Or, while slightly different, most stories with a training montage have “being overshadowed” as the impetus. To give just a few examples.


Your entire point is strawmen, ad hominems, and a shocking lack of respect for the agency and boundaries of others.

I think the usefulness of this conversation is other.

… what?

Now, I’m perfectly capable of being wrong, so maybe I’m wrong, but in my words,

* a strawman is a position no one holds, attacked in lieu of attacking the actual position, for the purpose of proving the speaker’s position “right” by comparison. For something to be a strawman, it requires it be an unheld position, for the difference to be intentional, and for the argument to fail against the actual position.

* an ad hominem attack is an attack on the character of an individual presenting an argument in lieu of an attack on the argument itself. Saruman’s response to claims by Radagast, of “Do not speak to me of Radagast the Brown. He is a foolish fellow.”, and going on to complain about his yellow teeth is a classic ad hominem, IMO. To be an ad hominem, it would need to be an attack on a person, completely irrelevant to the points they were making, for the purpose of dismissing their points.

* “lack of respect for the agency and boundaries of others” is a lot broader, and a bit more difficult to summarize. And I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m bored already.

So, let’s step through my previous post.

I opened by responding to concerns about the relevance of my comments and blatant accusations of strawmanning with demonstrations of quotes of how people has brought up balance, to the tune of caring about “the smallest of changes”, and even requesting two Rogues with identical skills be used as the example.

Is that
A) a strawman
B) an ad hominem
C) lack of respect for the agency and boundaries of others
D) none of the above?

Next, I touch on how chasing such balance is penny wise and pound foolish, given all the other factors that affect effectiveness, that affect balance in play (part of the point I’m making).

Is that
A) a strawman
B) an ad hominem
C) lack of respect for the agency and boundaries of others
D) none of the above?

Finally, I ramble a bit, trying to both explain and demonstrate the complex concept that the point of view / mindset with which one approaches a problem can impact how big the problem seems, and how easy it is to solve.

Is that
A) a strawman
B) an ad hominem
C) lack of respect for the agency and boundaries of others
D) none of the above?

And, as my player dumped Charisma, I don’t recognize a fundamental difference between that post, and my position. Certainly, so long as it is part of my position, any one of those three parts not being what you claim constitutes falsehood of the statement the my entire point is such.

So I expect you to explain yourself, or to retract your libelous statements. Personally, as I prioritize my learning and growth, I’m hoping you will teach me a thing or two.

You wanna say I’m a ****? Yeah, I’m a ****. I’ll freely admit it. In fact, I did (or intended to - I don’t think it actually came across right) earlier, in response to an admonition by @JNAProductions, that I should “Have some empathy for others”, where I explained how their proposed actions would not have produced the necessary logic to prove the point I was making.

However, if you try to use me being a **** to ignore my point? That’s pretty much the definition of an ad hominem. To do so as part of an accusation of making an ad hominem is… there’s a word for that. Be careful you don’t go there, eh?

[JNAProductions]

Superman rolls 1d4-2 for most skills, exploding dice.
Batman rolls 1d12 for most skills, exploding dice.

They DO have niche protection-but cheating removes that, in one direction.

It really seems like you’re saying “I don’t care about cheating, so no one should.”
Again-have empathy.

[Quertus]

Superman rolls 1d4-2 for most skills, exploding dice.
Batman rolls 1d12 for most skills, exploding dice.

They DO have niche protection-but cheating removes that, in one direction.

It really seems like you’re saying “I don’t care about cheating, so no one should.”
Again-have empathy.

It has soft niche protection - enough for some purposes, not enough for others. I’m encouraging people to develop the skills to do this analysis and problem solving for themselves.

And, to explicitly state it this time, I live more at the “being a ****” end of the “having empathy” / “being a ****” spectrum. I’m more “tough love” than “coddling”.

Others are welcome to give a more sensitive wording of my position if they want. But, like Bakugo from My Hero Academia, I have no skill at such things.

And I’d like to think that, if one reads carefully, that what I’m saying sounds less like, “I don’t care about cheating, so no one should.”, and more like…
I do care about cheating; probably more than most. But I’ve come to see that cheating at elf games doesn’t really matter wrt playing a functional game the way I thought it did, that like caring about mechanical “balance”, it represents having a suboptimal focus. There’s more important things to care about, from “enjoyment” and “mental health”, to “participation”, “having a story”, and “agency”. That being stuck caring about small picture fiddly details like that is an individual choice, and if that’s what’s holding someone back from having fun, or from having a good game, that they can and perhaps they should choose differently. I’m trying to show people a small fraction of the diverse toolkit available to them, should they choose to embark upon a path of making problems go away. I’ll happily prove people wrong about why one must cheat in particular circumstances, or any other such similar misconceptions they have, to tear down their illusions in the hopes of shocking them into seeing the truth. But I’m not about to hold their hands - they need to (wo)man up and get good if they want to walk this path.

Or something.

[Reversefigure4]

It has soft niche protection - enough for some purposes, not enough for others. I’m encouraging people to develop the skills to do this analysis and problem solving for themselves.

Isn't the easiest method of problem solving here "Don't play with cheaters", rather than "get good at coping with the fact that one guy cheats continually and learn to develop other methods of trying to establish your character in spite of them"?

"Cheating is bad, but not the only method of unbalancing or ruining a game" doesn't change the conclusion that cheating is bad.

[Quertus]

Isn't the easiest method of problem solving here "Don't play with cheaters", rather than "get good at coping with the fact that one guy cheats continually and learn to develop other methods of trying to establish your character in spite of them"?

"Cheating is bad, but not the only method of unbalancing or ruining a game" doesn't change the conclusion that cheating is bad.

With this one toolkit, you not only get cheating covered, you also get the ability to resolve balance issues, the ability to make groups with divergent skill work, perfect balance in 3e (and most every other system), and so much more! It slices! It dices!

Sigh.

“Cheating is bad” is not the same as “cheating is bad for the game”. I’m exclusively evaluating its effect on the game, and pointing out how it’s no different than numerous other things people have problems with, and it’d be really handy for them if there was a way to solve.

Wouldn’t you know it, my “gaming religion” solves All of these problems. (I’m too senile to remember if this is actually what I’ve dubbed my “gaming religion”. Sigh.)

And “easiest”? I’ve never claimed that Changing your world view, or developing skill and getting good, was easy. Or I sure hope I haven’t. Best? Most fun? Optimal? Maybe the only way that actually works? I might have implied such. But until I can mathematically prove that no other method or combination of methods could match my toolkit, I wouldn’t actually claim such. That would be false advertising.

Instead, I just make true claims, like how cheating at dice rolls isn’t as impactful as most believe, and can generally be given the “so what?” treatment, once you have the skill and mindset to do so.

[False God]

Instead, I just make true claims, like how cheating at dice rolls isn’t as impactful as most believe, and can generally be given the “so what?” treatment, once you have the skill and mindset to do so.

So can anything, given the proper mindset.

That doesn't mean it's good to do so or have such a mindset.

Which is still the portion you've failed to demonstrate.

[Quertus]

So can anything, given the proper mindset.

That doesn't mean it's good to do so or have such a mindset.

Which is still the portion you've failed to demonstrate.

That's fair. If you view "having problems" as good, that's your call.

And I don't mean that sarcastically - "If murder doesn't solve your problems, you're not using enough of it". It's fine if you choose "having problems" over "(enough) murder". I'm not judging either way. You do you. I'm just trying to give enough information that the reader can choose for themselves what they consider "good".

Unless by "good" you don't mean "good and evil", but you mean "good" as in "a fun and functional game". If that's the case, then remember the big long example that no one seems to want to discuss? That's the bit that most addressed that concern. So if your concern is about that meaning of "good" not having been proven? Then that's on you. I've done my part, ball's in your court to continue that conversation.

[False God]

That's fair. If you view "having problems" as good, that's your call.

It is good. It's difficult to write about why without delving too far into IRL issues, but the long and short of it is that some things aren't acceptable. This can range from the obviously unacceptable like murder to the questionably acceptable like the outfit someone chooses to wear outside. But as a society, and the Table/Group being something of a mini-society, it is good to object to some things.

It is good to set boundaries, to know what you like, dislike, and are willing to put up with, or not. It is good to "have problems" with people whose actions breach those boundaries and know what you're willing to do, or not do, to deal with that.

[kyoryu]

It is good. It's difficult to write about why without delving too far into IRL issues, but the long and short of it is that some things aren't acceptable. This can range from the obviously unacceptable like murder to the questionably acceptable like the outfit someone chooses to wear outside. But as a society, and the Table/Group being something of a mini-society, it is good to object to some things.

It is good to set boundaries, to know what you like, dislike, and are willing to put up with, or not. It is good to "have problems" with people whose actions breach those boundaries and know what you're willing to do, or not do, to deal with that.

As I've said in this thread, could I develop ways of dealing with someone that rages and yells every time they don't get their way?

Probably.

But I don't want to. And I don't need to.

Does that mean there are some players/tables that I won't be able to play with? Sure. And if I were willing to tolerate that I could play with them. But you know what, they could play with me if they learned to control their anger issues, as well.

We're allowed to have boundaries. Nobody has an obligation to play with anybody else. End of story.

[False God]

As I've said in this thread, could I develop ways of dealing with someone that rages and yells every time they don't get their way?

Probably.

But I don't want to. And I don't need to.

Does that mean there are some players/tables that I won't be able to play with? Sure. And if I were willing to tolerate that I could play with them. But you know what, they could play with me if they learned to control their anger issues, as well.

We're allowed to have boundaries. Nobody has an obligation to play with anybody else. End of story.

Exactly, and IME, having boundaries tends to work out for the best. Especially because it teaches the person who has them what they really want and what they don't. It's all fine and dandy to take a blasé attitude towards anything you normally wouldn't put up with, but if you'd really rather not be around that at all, being around and "learning to stop worrying and love the bomb" so to speak isn't going to get you what you really want. Worse because you probably will have some fun, it can lead you to getting even further away from what you actually want to be doing until you inevitably reach a point of "What the heck am I even doing here, I don't like anyone I'm playing with or anything we're playing!"

Leading you right back to where you should have been: setting boundaries between what you want to do, what you're willing to do, and what you don't want to do.

And honestly, I've seen a lot of folks go through this. It's exceedingly common in employment.

Plus, social pressure to conform, again IME, tends to bring people who operate outside the rules and even those who operate in the extremes, more into line with what the group generally enjoys, or at least can force them to create their own space where their own deviation from the rules or special style of unusual gaming can happen with other like-minded individuals. And not simply folks willing to tolerate it, but folks who actively want and enjoy that special sort of niche variant gaming.

Which is great IMO. People should be able to find whole tables that share what they enjoy. Cheating, min/maxing, fetishes, giant robots, steampunk, meat grinders, whatever. But we shouldn't be pushed into tolerating things we don't enjoy simply because it may produce some completely subjective to every experience level of fun.

[gbaji]

I just have two points to make on this:

1. The whole "two identical rogues" example was just that: An example intended to highlight a hypothetical case, so we could examine likely player experience and response in a case where the two character's skills and abilities are "close" and "similar" as a counter to the cases I was being presented with where the two characters were so ridiculously far apart in common skills and abilities as to be (equally) absurd, and where it was claimed that cheating wouldn't matter. It was obviously intended to be hypothetical, so responding with "but there's no chance of having two identical rogues in a party" is kinda not really a relevant response. The same argument works for any two characters being played that have common skills and abilities that are somewhat "close" in relative game power (and I followed up with several examples of this). And that's something that does typically happen at most gaming tables, certainly far more often than the counter case where apparently no two characters ever have anything in common that they try to ever do, so one cheating doesn't affect any of the others.

2. IME, a player who will cheat while playing their level 2 character in a game with level 20s, will also cheat when they are the one playing the level 20 character in a game with level 2s. So that excuse is just that: an excuse.

Players cheat, not characters. And they always cheat to be "better" at something than the stuff on their character sheet, the rules of the game, and the die rolls would normally result in. Rationalizing it away doesn't change that basic motivation. Trying to argue edge cases and exceptions doesn't either. The very fact that you have to contrive situations in which your rationalizations apply is the first clue that what you're trying to excuse isn't really excusable.

And yes. I do acknowledge that there can be games where the die rolls don't matter much, and where handwaving out outcomes is accepted. But those are also part of the "rules" the players all agree upon when they play the game. I've said this, yet keep getting example cases back that don't include these sorts of situations. Certainly, a case where the necromancer tosses a spell at a character forcing a "save or die" is not a case where your default table rules are "handwave die rolls to get outcomes we like". If so, then why have that in the scenario in the first place? There are a dozen ways to roleplay (or just define) the actions and spells/abilities of that necromancer that allow the PCs to overcome him without putting the player in the situation of rolling a die like that in the first place. That's how you do that in a game if you don't want those kinds of conflict/outcome situations to occur. just. don't. put. them. in. your. game.. You don't put the player in the "save or die" situation, and then introduce an exception case if the player doesn't like it. That's just... insane. And will very much result in chaotic behavior by the players at your table over time.

As a GM, create rules for your table and stick to them. It's just not that hard. Failure to do this is what usually causes problems at a table, even if you think you are doing it to create table harmony. You're not. You're just teaching your players bad habits, and in the long run, making them unhappy.

[NichG]

I just have two points to make on this:

1. The whole "two identical rogues" example was just that: An example intended to highlight a hypothetical case, so we could examine likely player experience and response in a case where the two character's skills and abilities are "close" and "similar" as a counter to the cases I was being presented with where the two characters were so ridiculously far apart in common skills and abilities as to be (equally) absurd, and where it was claimed that cheating wouldn't matter. It was obviously intended to be hypothetical, so responding with "but there's no chance of having two identical rogues in a party" is kinda not really a relevant response. The same argument works for any two characters being played that have common skills and abilities that are somewhat "close" in relative game power (and I followed up with several examples of this). And that's something that does typically happen at most gaming tables, certainly far more often than the counter case where apparently no two characters ever have anything in common that they try to ever do, so one cheating doesn't affect any of the others.

2. IME, a player who will cheat while playing their level 2 character in a game with level 20s, will also cheat when they are the one playing the level 20 character in a game with level 2s. So that excuse is just that: an excuse.

Players cheat, not characters. And they always cheat to be "better" at something than the stuff on their character sheet, the rules of the game, and the die rolls would normally result in. Rationalizing it away doesn't change that basic motivation. Trying to argue edge cases and exceptions doesn't either. The very fact that you have to contrive situations in which your rationalizations apply is the first clue that what you're trying to excuse isn't really excusable.

And yes. I do acknowledge that there can be games where the die rolls don't matter much, and where handwaving out outcomes is accepted. But those are also part of the "rules" the players all agree upon when they play the game. I've said this, yet keep getting example cases back that don't include these sorts of situations. Certainly, a case where the necromancer tosses a spell at a character forcing a "save or die" is not a case where your default table rules are "handwave die rolls to get outcomes we like". If so, then why have that in the scenario in the first place? There are a dozen ways to roleplay (or just define) the actions and spells/abilities of that necromancer that allow the PCs to overcome him without putting the player in the situation of rolling a die like that in the first place. That's how you do that in a game if you don't want those kinds of conflict/outcome situations to occur. just. don't. put. them. in. your. game.. You don't put the player in the "save or die" situation, and then introduce an exception case if the player doesn't like it. That's just... insane. And will very much result in chaotic behavior by the players at your table over time.

As a GM, create rules for your table and stick to them. It's just not that hard. Failure to do this is what usually causes problems at a table, even if you think you are doing it to create table harmony. You're not. You're just teaching your players bad habits, and in the long run, making them unhappy.

I was mostly staying out of this since I don't think Quertus' direction of argumentation is one that I would support here, but since this is my given example, and I explained this earlier.

Whether its good for something to be in the game or not can depend on the players. Furthermore, it can depend on the day of the week, what someone got in the mail, an encounter someone had at work, and other stuff that we're not privy to. Cheating can be about advantage, sure. But more fundamentally, I would say that it is about control. It is someone saying 'actually I am going to just decide this'. The thing that someone could make go their way is that they 'win' against someone else. Or it could be that they seize control of the situation. Or their seize control over what is happening to their character.

Players having control is not intrinsically good or bad. Players taking control when it wasn't given to them is not intrinsically good or bad. Players making up their mind whether they need control on the spot is not intrinsically good or bad. Having high pressure or high stakes but then allowing people to tap out is not intrinsically good or bad. It is not necessarily better than just not having those high pressure things at all, nor is it necessarily worse. It depends on the table.

No one is obligated to like playing at a table that permits cheating, but no one is obligated to hate it either or to stigmatize it or label it as immoral. The world will not end if people are allowed to cheat at a table. The group will not automatically disintegrate or become unhappy or automatically turn into sociopaths or turn secretly miserable or whatever. Some groups might! Some groups will do that even without cheating! But other groups can have a dynamic where it just doesn't matter so much - where its blase not because people are forcing themselves to tolerate something they dislike, but because its really just 'um, okay, you do you'. That at least I think Quertus is correct about, though the specific mechanical examples are IMO just a bad way to argue an essential point that inevitably gets lost in a sort of race towards more and more extreme positions.

[kyoryu]

"Cheating" (in the narrow sense of "not accurately reporting what the dice rolled") is not inherently a moral issue. However, telling your friends you're going to stick by a certain standard behavior and then not doing so kind of is.

That said, your points are pretty valid in terms of bad days, etc. Personally, that's why I tend to prefer games that put a lot more judgement in the GM's hands, and gives players some level of ability to influence things, even after the roll.

Like, in Fate, there's no die roll that inherently, mechanically says "you die". And even if the situation is such that a player doesn't want to accept the consequences of what happens, they can use Fate Points to buy out of that (but then they won't be able to for other things, thus "limited".)

In this way, a lot of the circumstances that you might handle with "cheating" (if the table is okay with it, it's fine) are baked into the process of the system, and don't require "overriding" the system.

[NichG]

"Cheating" (in the narrow sense of "not accurately reporting what the dice rolled") is not inherently a moral issue. However, telling your friends you're going to stick by a certain standard behavior and then not doing so kind of is.

That said, your points are pretty valid in terms of bad days, etc. Personally, that's why I tend to prefer games that put a lot more judgement in the GM's hands, and gives players some level of ability to influence things, even after the roll.

Like, in Fate, there's no die roll that inherently, mechanically says "you die". And even if the situation is such that a player doesn't want to accept the consequences of what happens, they can use Fate Points to buy out of that (but then they won't be able to for other things, thus "limited".)

In this way, a lot of the circumstances that you might handle with "cheating" (if the table is okay with it, it's fine) are baked into the process of the system, and don't require "overriding" the system.

I mean, there are lots of moving parts at a table, many combinations of which can be used to resolve issues or form compromises. You can use the choice of system to do things, but then that restricts your choice of system. You can use table culture to do things, but that can restrict the tenor of game.

If I am fine with cheating for a particular campaign, it's probably also going to have a no-PvP expectation. If I want PvP or competitive play in general, the compromise will be to be strict about cheating there. But if I am not doing that, I can run almost any system and lean on the table culture to make it work rather than either restricting myself to systems that have that sort of thing baked in.

I guess my point is that all of those choices are available to work with and to tune to specific player sets. Even if I don't go everywhere, knowing that there are different ways to be that discard really common assumptions is useful. Even outside the specific cheating topic. Not treating interactions at the table as needing to be in the form of contractual legalese is a very powerful idea. Knowing you can ask the group to uphold a value rather than make a rule is a very powerful idea.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Knowing you can ask the group to uphold a value rather than make a rule is a very powerful idea.

Asking a group to uphold a value is making a rule. It's the most important form of rule IMO.

[NichG]

Asking a group to uphold a value is making a rule. It's the most important form of rule IMO.

It's different from the usual sense of rule in that it can't be objectively determined whether it was violated, and furthermore it may not be something which can in a binary sense either be followed or not followed correctly. 'Value the fun of the group as a whole' for example.

I think its a useful distinction since there often is a perception that the only kinds of things that can be meaningful are 'you must do X' or 'you must not do X' sorts of things, leading to e.g. 'I did everything my players asked, are they justified in still disliking my game?' kinds of misunderstandings.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's different from the usual sense of rule in that it can't be objectively determined whether it was violated, and furthermore it may not be something which can in a binary sense either be followed or not followed correctly. 'Value the fun of the group as a whole' for example.

I think its a useful distinction since there often is a perception that the only kinds of things that can be meaningful are 'you must do X' or 'you must not do X' sorts of things, leading to e.g. 'I did everything my players asked, are they justified in still disliking my game?' kinds of misunderstandings.

All the important "rules" are like this. Rules that can be objectively implemented are, in my opinion, best left up to machines to do where possible, and rarely actually intrinsically matter. They only matter because there's the table value of "play by the (mechanical) rules". In the absence of that table value, cheating isn't possible/meaningful. It's only violations of these table values that actually cause friction. So it's even more important to get them in the open and be very clear about them, even if you can't mechanically/binary enforce.

If you (especially as a DM) "break the rules" in service of the table value of "help everyone have fun" and everyone has fun...you didn't break any rules. In fact, following the (mechanical/system) rules in a way that reduces table fun is a breach of the rules, at least the rules that actually matter." Written words have no feelings. People do.

[kyoryu]

I mean, there are lots of moving parts at a table, many combinations of which can be used to resolve issues or form compromises. You can use the choice of system to do things, but then that restricts your choice of system. You can use table culture to do things, but that can restrict the tenor of game.

For sure! Though, to be fair, I tend to prefer systems that give that room anyway, for a vast number of other reasons. So it's not really a restriction in that case.

(Specifically, explicitly creating those judgement situations in the rules also means that you don't need to override the rules for other reasons, so you can let the dice fall where they may and follow the rules that exist the vast majority of the time. That does create a situation where you have to have a decent level of trust in the table, but frankly if I don't have that I'd rather not play.)


All the important "rules" are like this. Rules that can be objectively implemented are, in my opinion, best left up to machines to do where possible, and rarely actually intrinsically matter. They only matter because there's the table value of "play by the (mechanical) rules". In the absence of that table value, cheating isn't possible/meaningful. It's only violations of these table values that actually cause friction. So it's even more important to get them in the open and be very clear about them, even if you can't mechanically/binary enforce.

If you (especially as a DM) "break the rules" in service of the table value of "help everyone have fun" and everyone has fun...you didn't break any rules. In fact, following the (mechanical/system) rules in a way that reduces table fun is a breach of the rules, at least the rules that actually matter." Written words have no feelings. People do.

I think you two are in violent agreement, though it probably is worthwhile to note those two sets of "rules" and their properties. Treating the "value-rules" as "hard-rules" generally ends up in bad places.

[Talakeal]

An update from the OP:

So I played again the other night, and had another instance where the players encountered a monster and one of them simply pulled out the MM and read the entry. I don't like this behavior as it is both disruptive to the flow of the game and makes IC lore skills irrelevant, but I wasn't sure how to say anything without making a scene so I kept my mouth shut.

Is there any way I can have a conversation explaining to my players that it is not acceptable to be reading monster entries at the table without coming across as an ass?


The cheating player continues to pull off literal 1 in a million rolls each session, succeed at 90% of all dice rolls, and critically succeed at close to half of all dice rolls. I actually wore my glasses to the gaming session (I don't normally wear them except when driving or watching movies because I only need them for long distance reading and they mess up my close up vision) and actually saw here lie about the result of a dice roll several times. Any advice on how to address this?

[Jorren]

An update from the OP:

So I played again the other night, and had another instance where the players encountered a monster and one of them simply pulled out the MM and read the entry. I don't like this behavior as it is both disruptive to the flow of the game and makes IC lore skills irrelevant, but I wasn't sure how to say anything without making a scene so I kept my mouth shut.

Is there any way I can have a conversation explaining to my players that it is not acceptable to be reading monster entries at the table without coming across as an ass?


The cheating player continues to pull off literal 1 in a million rolls each session, succeed at 90% of all dice rolls, and critically succeed at close to half of all dice rolls. I actually wore my glasses to the gaming session (I don't normally wear them except when driving or watching movies because I only need them for long distance reading and they mess up my close up vision) and actually saw here lie about the result of a dice roll several times. Any advice on how to address this?

I would phrase it exactly like this at the start of the next game session:


Can we have a conversation about the notion that it is not acceptable to be reading monster entries at the table without me coming across as an ass?

[Anymage]

An update from the OP:

So I played again the other night, and had another instance where the players encountered a monster and one of them simply pulled out the MM and read the entry. I don't like this behavior as it is both disruptive to the flow of the game and makes IC lore skills irrelevant, but I wasn't sure how to say anything without making a scene so I kept my mouth shut.

Is there any way I can have a conversation explaining to my players that it is not acceptable to be reading monster entries at the table without coming across as an ass?

How many players are doing this? If it's just one guy you can ask everyone to put all non-PHB books away somewhere out of reach, under the same logic as asking everyone to put their phones away so they can focus on the game at hand. IF the behavior is spreading you might be facing an uphill battle.

It can be useful to refluff, since it's hard to look up the specific monster if you don't know what the underlying stat block is. That depends on how much this is a specific case of looking up monster stats vs. generally breaking table flow to metagame.


The cheating player continues to pull off literal 1 in a million rolls each session, succeed at 90% of all dice rolls, and critically succeed at close to half of all dice rolls. I actually wore my glasses to the gaming session (I don't normally wear them except when driving or watching movies because I only need them for long distance reading and they mess up my close up vision) and actually saw here lie about the result of a dice roll several times. Any advice on how to address this?

In theory you could ask everyone to roll in plain view in the center of the table, but I have a feeling this player is sitting somewhere out of the way for a reason. And either babysitting her yourself or asking someone else to take up the job means that someone else has to expend a lot of mental effort trying to keep her straight.

Next time you're playing you can call her out when you spot her lying about a dice roll. But there are no good solutions I can think of. Putting her on the spot and turning it into "let's all roll where everyone can see from now on, to make sure there's no more chance of misunderstanding" takes a lot of finesse to pull off and she'll very likely try to keep testing that norm when she thinks she can get away with it. Booting her would have the obvious social fallout. Taking the "ehh, screw it" philosophy and turning a blind eye means that the behavior will continue and most likely spread.

[Reversefigure4]

An update from the OP... Any advice on how to address this?

With your particular group, there's no solution (that doesn't involve new players).
- Asking them not to look through the MM while you're playing will result in the players complaining.
- Changing the monster's stats (it's not a Troll, it's a Squalmish, which uses similar stats but is immune to fire and can fly at 20") will result in the players complaining about your metagaming.
- Making up custom monsters that can't be looked up will result in complaining.
- Asking them to put the book in the middle of the table so that everyone can metagame with equal levels of power will result in the players complaining.
- Asking the player to stop cheating will result in a lot of denial and whining, followed by continued cheating.
- Putting in a table rule that everyone has to roll in a visible dice tray will result in complaining.
- Asking them to all cheat equally and just telling them they can declare whatever result they want will result in complaining.
- Asking the player to cheat more subtly by rolling in their own unseen dice tray so you don't have to see how much they're cheating will probably result in complaining.
- Asking them why they're cheating will result in "I'm not, but if I am, it's your fault GM."

At this point, I'd probably use Quertus' advice. Make it clear to the entire table that it's perfectly OK to cheat, read the Monster Manual, read the module in advance, metagame to their heart's content. Dropkick any form of narrative or mechanical balance out the window, and completely alter the nature of the game to 'players do whatever they want' and see if they turn into Quertus-level roleplayers? Even then, I'd expect a bunch of complaints about how it's now 'too easy' and your terrible faults some more.

[Keltest]

At this point, I think the solution is to drop the group. These people are taking advantage of you, full stop. You arent having fun, and you seem to be under the impression that they will not change their behavior to fix that.

If you're feeling generous, tell them point blank that the problematic behavior needs to end immediately and unconditionally, or you walk. But I dont think theres any resolution to this problem that doesnt involve you walking or threatening to do so.

[Psyren]

An update from the OP:

So I played again the other night, and had another instance where the players encountered a monster and one of them simply pulled out the MM and read the entry. I don't like this behavior as it is both disruptive to the flow of the game and makes IC lore skills irrelevant, but I wasn't sure how to say anything without making a scene so I kept my mouth shut.

Is there any way I can have a conversation explaining to my players that it is not acceptable to be reading monster entries at the table without coming across as an ass?


The cheating player continues to pull off literal 1 in a million rolls each session, succeed at 90% of all dice rolls, and critically succeed at close to half of all dice rolls. I actually wore my glasses to the gaming session (I don't normally wear them except when driving or watching movies because I only need them for long distance reading and they mess up my close up vision) and actually saw here lie about the result of a dice roll several times. Any advice on how to address this?

I think you can fix the first issue (see Jorren's post) but not the second unless you straight-up threaten to walk as Keltest mentioned. And be ready to follow through.

(As always, no gaming > bad gaming.)

[Vahnavoi]

An update from the OP:

So I played again the other night, and had another instance where the players encountered a monster and one of them simply pulled out the MM and read the entry. I don't like this behavior as it is both disruptive to the flow of the game and makes IC lore skills irrelevant, but I wasn't sure how to say anything without making a scene so I kept my mouth shut.

Is there any way I can have a conversation explaining to my players that it is not acceptable to be reading monster entries at the table without coming across as an ass?

The cheating player continues to pull off literal 1 in a million rolls each session, succeed at 90% of all dice rolls, and critically succeed at close to half of all dice rolls. I actually wore my glasses to the gaming session (I don't normally wear them except when driving or watching movies because I only need them for long distance reading and they mess up my close up vision) and actually saw here lie about the result of a dice roll several times. Any advice on how to address this?

Yes. The conversation goes like this: "X is against the rules. As a game referee, I'm giving you a warning. Do it again and you'll be out of the game for rest of the session."

If players protest: "When you chose to play this particular game with me as the game master, you agreed to play according to its rules, with me as their enforcer. If you don't accept me enforcing base rules of the game, there is no point in me running this game."

If players continue to protest, you pick up your ball and go home.

This is a lesson you ought to have learned on third grade in elementary school. That you instead opted to keep your mouth shut to avoid making a scene suggests that your players have emotionally worn you down to the point where you'd rather let them have their way than hold them accountable for their behaviour. The situation will never actually get better if you keep acting the way you did.

The entire sequence is pretty much a case study of what happens when a game master fails to explain that they're also the game's referee and cannot convince players to give them their final say.

[Quertus]

With your particular group, there's no solution (that doesn't involve new players).
- Asking them not to look through the MM while you're playing will result in the players complaining.
- Changing the monster's stats (it's not a Troll, it's a Squalmish, which uses similar stats but is immune to fire and can fly at 20") will result in the players complaining about your metagaming.
- Making up custom monsters that can't be looked up will result in complaining.
- Asking them to put the book in the middle of the table so that everyone can metagame with equal levels of power will result in the players complaining.
- Asking the player to stop cheating will result in a lot of denial and whining, followed by continued cheating.
- Putting in a table rule that everyone has to roll in a visible dice tray will result in complaining.
- Asking them to all cheat equally and just telling them they can declare whatever result they want will result in complaining.
- Asking the player to cheat more subtly by rolling in their own unseen dice tray so you don't have to see how much they're cheating will probably result in complaining.
- Asking them why they're cheating will result in "I'm not, but if I am, it's your fault GM."

At this point, I'd probably use Quertus' advice. Make it clear to the entire table that it's perfectly OK to cheat, read the Monster Manual, read the module in advance, metagame to their heart's content. Dropkick any form of narrative or mechanical balance out the window, and completely alter the nature of the game to 'players do whatever they want' and see if they turn into Quertus-level roleplayers? Even then, I'd expect a bunch of complaints about how it's now 'too easy' and your terrible faults some more.

Good stuff! The first part because it’s true, the last bit because it’s funny.

For the record, the recipe that produced a “Quertus-level roleplayer” started with an emotionally-mature [1] alien [2] with great intellectual curiosity. Throw in a zealous (“one right way”) paternal unit with a military background. Slowly fill the growing intellect with increasingly complex board games, then introduce war games. Next, introduce RPGs, which will be taken as war games where you get to try to act like other people. Show how stupid it feels to jump around a character’s timeline, where two characters are meeting each other at level 18, and roleplay accordingly, yet know each other when they’re later played at level 5 for the next adventure. Lastly, introduce the players to salvation in the form of a group that obviously but gently prioritizes roleplaying, in the form of one of the biggest sources of spotlight time being then asking questions like, “the version of <character> who lives in my head would have done X. You had them do Y. Help me understand why they chose Y over X.”, and whose influence further teaches the impressionable youth to laugh at notions like “pacing” as unnecessary if not harmful to the game.

Taking the recipe of “anything goes”, and applying it to Talakeal’s table?

I mean, first off, kinda the point of my comments was that most anything can be done with the right mindset. The problem is, Talakeal’s table really lacks a cohesive table culture beyond blame throwing and explosive immaturity. About the only thing that’s good for is roleplaying children, or certain famous individuals who don’t make good role models.

I’d say more, but it’d be counterproductive. So, yeah, it’s as likely to work as anything at Talakeal’s table, I guess.

[1] Seriously, I don’t think my player knows how to roleplay children.
[2] From my point of view, the Jedi are evil you guys are the aliens. Same difference.


An update from the OP:

So I played again the other night,

Well, that’s your first problem right there.

No, not just the snarky version of that statement - this should have read, “so I talked to the player who pulled out the MM, then glared at me when I asked them to put it away”. You’ve missed your prime opportunity to deal with this like reasonable adults.


and had another instance where the players encountered a monster and one of them simply pulled out the MM and read the entry.

Good for them, pursuing the style of game they enjoy, despite (from their perspective) their GM not caring about their preferences or enjoyment enough to give them a game they’ll enjoy.


I don't like this behavior as it is both disruptive to the flow of the game


and makes IC lore skills irrelevant,

So, here’s the thing:

No, wait. First, a caveat, as I need to state my biases: I hate “IC lore skills”. There’s a lot of systems where they’re one of the dumbest things in the system.

That out of the way, let’s look at two opposed mindsets on this problem of “player skill or action invalidating or bypassing a skill”.

Combat as War

So, in CaW, “not having to roll” is the goal. The objective is to utilize the strategic layer to remove the necessity to drop to the tactical layer, to make success so assured that there’s no need to roll dice (outside rare opportunities to further characterize the character through the roleplaying that occurs during the specific micro-interactions during combat (or whatever other type of encounter the player skills should have otherwise bypassed)).

But part of the trick is, CaW thinking relies on accurate intel; leaping to false conclusions about the Avatar of Hate is a good reason for the GM to pull the party into initiative instead of simply narrating past the encounter, forcing the party to second-guess “what did we get wrong in our analysis?”.

Here, “ignorance” is a sin, a sign of failure - something your players aren’t mature enough to handle. So this behavior of looking at the book is seen as a good way to solve the problem of stupid actions taken in ignorance and the pursuant blame throwing.

Combat as Sport

Here, the important part is that the challenges be “sporting”, and utilizing the strategic layer to bypass the challenge of the encounter is tantamount to being a killjoy, if not outright cheating.

So learning about the monster by reading the book is obviously bad, right? Well… not exactly. But the thinking gets more complex here.

Obviously, “bypassing the skill by reading the book” is bad. However, “bypassing the GM by reading the book” is not. That is, it’s equivalent to making the skill roll, and the GM saying, “here, read this”. And, between the book having pictures, giving more detail than a GM who cares about “pacing” is likely to care to give, and the GM in question being untrusted, with a history of poor communication skills? Yeah, I can absolutely see anyone making their skill roll responding by cracking open the book, showing everyone, having a bonding moment with the team, and maybe asking the GM, “anything different about your Smurfs that we should know about?”.

So that covers why they’d favor the book over an explanation from the GM. But making the skill roll is still obviously the first step, right?

Not necessarily.

We’re still in Combat as Sport. Which means that encounters should be balanced for exactly one difficulty level. Engaging the strategic layer, and changing that difficulty level is cheating, remember? Well, the difficulty of fighting against a known vs an unknown quantity represents a change in the challenge of the encounter. And that’s cheating, remember? So, was it designed to be a known quantity, or an unknown quantity? Well, it’s in the book, and we might well know it OOC, so it’s clearly meant to be a known quantity. No point even rolling at this point.

So a CaS mindset can easily rationalize that it is critical that everyone understands exactly what they’re encountering, even before the Determinator, your players’ weak egos and inability to deal with looking foolish, or your players’ desire for an easier game than you deliver gets involved.

Or they may just like dealing with the known (perhaps from having horror stories about dealing with the unknown like the Avatar of Hate), and be wielding their agency as human beings to force the game towards a direction they’ll enjoy, given that they have no other real options to improve the game.

Since they can’t get you to hand them an ever-successful power fantasy, and you don’t seem interested in testing a game where the logical consequences of failure are setbacks rather than TPKs, this seems a logical growth of their behavior.



but I wasn't sure how to say anything without making a scene so I kept my mouth shut.

Well, at least this gives you the option to take the high road, explain… something more coherent than “game flow” and “ic skills”, I hope… and ask them to explain their reasons why they went for the book.

I wouldn’t be surprised to hear, “we’ve all decided you **** at description, so we’re fixing your game”, or “I like the pictures”, or “what book?” from Bizarro world at this point. From a normal player, I’d advise you to listen to their feedback, and figure out how to give them what they want before suggesting that as an alternative to their actions.

Heck, since your reasons are rather flimsy, just skip explaining yourself, and move straight to understanding their PoV.




Is there any way I can have a conversation explaining to my players that it is not acceptable to be reading monster entries at the table without coming across as an ass?

Probably not.

I mean, I’m a ****, and even I would approach this with asking questions and trying to solve their underlying issues.

Since that’s not a thing you do, your choices are pretty much “accept it, encouraging the players to ignore you further”, or “come off as a ****, increase their resentment of you, and make the game explode or implode in whole new ways as you struggle to remove what little agency they’ve claimed for themselves”.


The cheating player continues to pull off literal 1 in a million rolls each session, succeed at 90% of all dice rolls, and critically succeed at close to half of all dice rolls. I actually wore my glasses to the gaming session (I don't normally wear them except when driving or watching movies because I only need them for long distance reading and they mess up my close up vision) and actually saw here lie about the result of a dice roll several times. Any advice on how to address this?

Best case is for another player to address it, IME.

[Talakeal]

Snip.

I have to ask, are you doing that Devil's advocate sort of thing where you try and type a post coming from the perspective of one of my players? Because most of this reads as downright sociopathic, and kind of reminds of when I was a kid and one of my players used to cut up my mom's furniture with a pocket knife during the game and claim that he was justified in doing so because I invited him over and failed to keep him sufficiently entertained.

I will say though, the conflict between IC knowledge skills and OOC game knowledge is an interesting topic, because playing someone who is more or less knowledgeable than you are is an important part of the fantasy and really hard to do. This merits further discussion. Care to elaborate on your end of it?


Or they may just like dealing with the known (perhaps from having horror stories about dealing with the unknown like the Avatar of Hate).

If you recall, in that situation they weren't dealing with an unknown, I told them exactly what the mechanic was and they decided that I was playing word games in an attempt to trick them into doing the opposite of what they needed to. And, honestly, at the point where the DM is trying to trick you OOC I really don't think there is anything printed in the monster manual that is going to help.



Since they can’t get you to hand them an ever-successful power fantasy, and you don’t seem interested in testing a game where the logical consequences of failure are setbacks rather than TPKs, this seems a logical growth of their behavior.

Wait, wait, who said that? I don't think I have ever had an actual TPK outside of a one shot in three decades of gaming. I much prefer games with setbacks rather than TPKs, and frequently have to wrangle my players into it as they would much rather die than face capture, humiliation, or god forbid financial loss, especially when they are already feeling upset from losing and in a mood to cut off their nose to spite their face.

If you recall my last campaign, I actually had them roll on a mishap chart rather than dying, which they complained was to random, so I changed it to losing a set amount of treasure, which they complained was to punishing, so I changed it to no punishment for death, which they then started killing themselves the moment things went wrong for a "free teleport back to town" and then got mad when the NPCs who were with them died as a result because they said we had an unspoken "gentleman's agreement" that no punishment for death meant there were no storyline consequences for death.

[gbaji]

I would phrase it exactly like this at the start of the next game session:


Can we have a conversation about the notion that it is not acceptable to be reading monster entries at the table without me coming across as an ass?

Honestly. Even that is too passive IMO, especially based on what I've picked up about this table and their roughshod play style. Asking if we can have a conversation about something? Just verbally tell the player "You can't do that" right at the moment they do that. Not 5 minutes later. Not the next day, or next game session. Right then.

Treat them like a puppy you are training. You don't wait until the next day and then have a conversation about how chewing on the furniture is bad, or pooping in the house is bad. You address the issue right then. I think a heck of a lot of the problems with this table is that they are not being told firmly what is acceptable and what it not acceptable.

If someone reached for a source book at my table, literally the game would stop at that point. I would ask them what they are doing. If the answer is anything other than "moving this to the side so I don't spill my drink on it", the next thing out of my mouth is "there is no looking up anything other than player rules/spells while playing". I will tell them what they know about the creature/opponent they are facing based on whatever may be common knowledge in the game, assumed knowledge based on the past/history of the PCs in play, and whatever lore based skills that may be applicable and successfully made. Period.

The GM has to run the table. That doesn't mean you iron fist things, but there do have to be firm rules that are followed. When players think the GM is a pushover, they will push him over. That's what appears to be happening here. Thinking you are making the players happier by giving in to this behavior is actually not making them happy. It's just creating more conflict.

[Quertus]

I have to ask, are you doing that Devil's advocate sort of thing where you try and type a post coming from the perspective of one of my players?

Pretty much? I’ve no idea what’s going on in Bizarro World, but I figure, if I keep giving you different potential perspectives, it’s the best I can do to help you to look at things from different perspectives. Kinda like how you commented that your players weren’t as imaginative or whatever as I was, when I suggested solutions to a problem their characters faced. And maybe some different perspective will some day click, or you’ll build your own in a “WWQD” moment, and bring sanity kicking and screaming to your table. Or describe your table in a way that sounds remotely sane, such that the Playground can give you advice other than “leave that Dimension”.

That’s all I’ve time to say today; I may respond to the rest tomorrow (senility willing).

[Quixotic1]

I'll admit, I've only read a portion of all of this. But...wow. I just...wow. I'm sorry for anyone who's involved with a group like this.

This just seems...so complicated and disastisfying. Isn't this supposed to be fun?

I don't think the "pack up and go home" is usually very helpful, because most of us tend to play with people who are also our friends. There's more at stake here than a game.

But if you can't honestly talk with your friends about what you enjoy and what you don't...is there really that much at stake? How good of friends can they really be?

"Hey everyone. I haven't been having fun because of X and Y. Can we please not do X and Y? If you really want to, I think you'll have to find someone else to run these games."

Honestly, being a player is easy. Finding another player is easy.
But being a GM is hard. Finding a new one is hard. You're the one spending time and effort to put all this together. You're the one taking on the biggest burden by far. You're the one who's opening yourself up to criticism and judgement.

All of these players who want something super specific out of their hobby that someone else is doing all the work to make happen...I just...who do they think they are, exactly? Why do they feel entitles to exactly *this* and not at all *that*? And why is it the GM's job to tease the meaning out of their player's secret hearts and be a font of insight, patience and understanding in the face of this hungry, bottomless void of expectations?

There are enough player advocates out there. Be a GM advocate. But more than that, be an advocate for yourself.

Maybe it's not so bad, but these people sound toxic beyond the hobby. They sound awful.

I hope you can find some way to have fun and stop feeling at all obligated to endure this kind of situation. Good luck, and my condolences.

[Easy e]

Snip a bunch of stuff

I have to admit, if I was a newbie and came to these forums to get an idea of what I was getting into with TTRPGs and D&D.... I would run screaming away from the game and never look back.