Is asking for advice between game sessions cheating?

[JonestheSpy]

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

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

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

[Jacque]

An intelligent enough character could perhaps justify the infosearch on the web between sessions. The character's knowledge on the matter would be greater than the average player.

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

[Coidzor]

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

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

[Mastikator]

An intelligent enough character could perhaps justify the infosearch on the web between sessions. The character's knowledge on the matter would be greater than the average player.

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

[Endarire]

In large part, a player and his character are connected. If you (player) know something, you may subconsciously display you do, regardless of intentions.

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

[Killer Angel]

Your characters are facing this, you figure it out.

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

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

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

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

[Serpentine]

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

[Coidzor]

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

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

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

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

[Killer Angel]

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

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

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

[DonEsteban]

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

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

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

[dsmiles]

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

Mmmmm...pizza...

[Killer Angel]

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

You are what you eat. Cannibalism FTW!

[akma]

Ok, it`s cheating (a bit), now what?

[FelixG]

Is it cheating? No

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

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

[Gaiyamato]

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

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

This actually upsets some people?

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

[Grogmir]

Your players are talking about the game between sessions and this is a problem to you?

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

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

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

[Aotrs Commander]

That sword cuts both ways. I assume then, those of you share the OP's views, you don't plan your encounter tactics in advance either? So the players are being challenged by the monster, not you? No?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Killer Angel]

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

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

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

I think no one disagrees with this

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

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

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

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

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

And there's a lot of room between.

[Aotrs Commander]

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

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

Um...

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

There's no Black and white in this matter.

*snip*

And there's a lot of room between.

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

[Subotei]

The amount of XP to award is in the hands of the GM - if the PCs are consistently abusing outside knowledge to reduce the challenge then give them less XP.

[weenie]

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

[dsmiles]

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

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

[Killer Angel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Aotrs Commander]

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

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

(E.g. my "finest" example" now in the archives, basically required some between-session planning on both sides...!)

[dsmiles]

Not always.
Scry 'n die requires the planning of an attack.

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

[Aotrs Commander]

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

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

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

[Kaeso]

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

[bokodasu]

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

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

[NeoRetribution]

Is asking for advice between game sessions cheating?

Hm, that question needs more definition.

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

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

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


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

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

[Killer Angel]

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

Then, we have an agreement...

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

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