D&D General Poll: As a player, I am always justified in pursuing every advantage I find, no matter what.

[EzekielRaiden]

Pretty much exactly what it says on the tin.

If you as a player see an advantage you could exploit, whatever it might be, whether in the rules or outside them, are you always justified in pursuing it?

Edit: To be clear, this is not any form of cheating, in the sense of breaking any gameplay rules. No falsifying rolls, "misremembering" HP or GP, "accidentally" (read: on purpose) giving yourself features you shouldn't have at your level, etc.

 

[RangerWickett]

I mean, if the rules are badly designed, and using those rules helps you 'win' at the expense of the enjoyment of the rest of the table, is that even really a 'win'? Why would you want to do something that makes your fellow players unhappy.

Like, oh hey, the rules in 3.5 say nothing to explicitly forbid me from taking a 5-ft step vertically, so I can get a high ground advantage against my opponent. There's no rules saying I cannot stand on thin air. So yeah, I'm going to whine and pout until the GM lets me do this dumb thing, all so I can get a +1 bonus, and then I'll roll a 2 and it won't matter anyway.

Oh, hey, by making a DC 10 Ride check I can mount or dismount as a free action. There happen to be three horses all within 5 feet of each other, and I can't fail the DC 10 check, so as five free actions I'll mount, dismount on the other side, mount the next horse, dismount on the far side, and repeat that again, to travel 35 feet in an instant. Sure, it's allowed by the rules, but if the GM says no, that's okay. Hell, the rules explicitly say that you don't always have to follow what's written in the books.

 

[aco175]

When you use charged words like 'no matter what', or 'always' it should skew towards no- I hope. You do take away the squishy middle ground of a lot of people choosing 'it depends' or 'sometimes' and make things all or nothing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've never met an adult player who subscribed to that philosophy, thankfully.

On the other hand, I did play with a fairly extreme munchkin as a teenager (since recovered) who from about 13 to 16 absolutely did subscribe to this approach, and indeed not only subscribed to that, but also to "The game is entirely about my PC being awesome even if that makes the game suck for everyone else playing". Rules tended to mitigate the impact of this quite a bit but it certainly made Cyberpunk 2020 a horror show.

 

[GreyLord]

Hard to answer. I'd say...YES...BUT then I think of what someone may interpret that as...

For example, someone CHEATING on purpose, or twisting something so badly it basically IS cheating and then ignoring or arguing with the DM about it, and other items like that...

Also makes me want to put down a STRONG no as well.

 

[iserith]

If it's within the rules, yes. If it's outside the rules, no. Unless in the latter case we're talking about exploiting something about the fictional context in play, in which case, I would say yes.

I fully expect and encourage players to try to eke out every advantage and govern myself as DM accordingly. All of this, however, must be subordinate to the goals of play, that is, everyone having fun and creating an exciting, memorable story by playing.

 

[beancounter]

I only exploit opportunities within the rules.

 

[James Gasik]

I generally don't try to take undue advantage from the rules- if something seems busted, I'll point it out and let the DM rule on it. The problem is, the line between "rules mastery" and "exploiting bad rules" can be pretty fine. One person can look at an interaction and go "oh wow, I mean, it requires me to backflip seven times consecutively and balance on a pin, but if I can, that's amazing!"

Another person can look at the same interaction and be horrified by how someone can "trivially break the game by taking Expertise in Acrobatics (to perform said backflips and balancing)".

My rule of thumb is usually "if it's so good, everyone would be doing it", then there's something wrong with it.

Like Evocation Wizards and the ruling you roll one damage roll for magic missile. Seems sus to me, but I've had many people tell me it's a perfectly legitimate combo...

 

[Scribe]

No, this game is not a competition, nor is money on the line.

 

[payn]

I'm more of strategic player so this type of thing is a negotiation between the group and the rules. We aim for consistency, but always consider the context of the situation. Tactical players tend to want absolute consistency and aim to exploit advantages wherever they can find them because that is the name of the game. Some see that as fun, I see it as exhausting.