D&D 5E Do you DM?

[prabe]

Once or twice, since I DM and used to run a lot of modules during 1e and 2e, I played in a game with where a DM ran a module that I was familiar with. I always let that DM know and discussed the issue. Once the DM changed to a different module. Once the DM let me decide whether my PC would have figured something out or not, trusting me not to cheat. That put a lot of pressure on me as a player, since I had to really think hard about what I as a player would have been able to figure out, as well as what my PC would be able to figure out.

I don't think a TRPG table can work if there isn't trust between the players and the GM. Trust can be difficult to manage, both to lift and to carry; and it needs to be bidrectional; and holy ack that's a mangled metaphor.

 

[Stoutstien]

First, I have no problems excluding a player who is actively harming the fun of others at the table. Regardless of the cause (cheating, obnoxious behavior, racial/misogynist comments, etc.) I would talk to them about it, see if there is improvement, and if not remove them from the group.

Second, changing a campaign would exclude them "completionist" the same way. And probably impact the "once bitten twice shy" as things are not as they expect. Both reasons you brought up for people intentionally reading the modules after they know they will be playing in them. I'm fine with changing published adventures, but your "solution" of requiring it doesn't even satisfy your own criteria.

Each type of player has to be addressed separately. Not running public campaign handles about 95% of them.
the remaining completionist can be handled by giving them something they can complete in the game that they can see and interact with. It could be as simple as a map that they uncover or A relic broken up into pieces that can put together. Completionist are easy to address because their motivations are very clear.
The players that have a tendency to have a player versus DM mentality take a little bit more finesse. Sometimes it's even hard to recognize them. They just have a few things in common like putting a lot of resources into a single encounter if it wanted to retreat and rest. Overkill And over rest. They are usually very indecisive with actions but very decisive in character development decisions.
Getting them to go a little bit further than they're comfortable with and not punishing them for doing so goes a long way.

 

[Blue]

Getting them to go a little bit further than they're comfortable with and not punishing them for doing so goes a long way.

Again, if they actively undermine the fun of other players at the table via cheating, and don't respond to talking to them to stop it, then I will punish them by removing them. They don't have more rights than the other players put together.

 

[Stoutstien]

Again, if they actively undermine the fun of other players at the table via cheating, and don't respond to talking to them to stop it, then I will punish them by removing them. They don't have more rights than the other players put together.

Is being a paranoid player cheating? That's the standard MO for alot of players I've seen over the years. We kick all them out of the hobby the player pool will probably be pretty slim.

 

[Blue]

Is being a paranoid player cheating? That's the standard MO for alot of players I've seen over the years. We kick all them out of the hobby the player pool will probably be pretty slim.

We were talking about people acting on knowledge that they have but their characters don't. Is that your definition of "paranoid"?

Please, let's not try to move the goalposts, even accidentally. If you are intentionally bring in out of game knowledge and acting on it in game, you are cheating. Why you are doing it is immaterial.

 

[Stoutstien]

Once or twice, since I DM and used to run a lot of modules during 1e and 2e, I played in a game with where a DM ran a module that I was familiar with. I always let that DM know and discussed the issue. Once the DM changed to a different module. Once the DM let me decide whether my PC would have figured something out or not, trusting me not to cheat. That put a lot of pressure on me as a player, since I had to really think hard about what I as a player would have been able to figure out, as well as what my PC would be able to figure out.

It's a lot harder in practice isn't it? It's easy for people to say "just roleplay" but when the scenario risers where the decision could have a lasting impact on the campaign and you know the right answer, that's not role-playing.

We were talking about people acting on knowledge that they have but their characters don't. Is that your definition of "paranoid"?

Please, let's not try to move the goalposts, even accidentally. If you are intentionally bring in out of game knowledge and acting on it in game, you are cheating. Why you are doing it is immaterial.

The example was why not using published and paint works for that type of player. When they can no longer use their knowledge to plan ahead it shows.

So I stand by my statement that not using publish campaign avoids the issue with player knowledge of a campaign prevents the possibly interfering with the game.

I should also point out that it is impossible too separate player and character knowledge. Individual people can choose which information they use but it's still there which I think you acknowledge. The problem comes from deciding where that break point is. Most people would agree with you that reading the book prior to the session would be cheating but you going to a gray area like my example of choosing cleric because you're doing curse of strahd. It's metagaming in the same regard but not looked upon as cheating usually.

I can't police what players know but I can choose how it impacts my games by controlling its usefulness.

 

[Blue]

The example was why not using published and paint works for that type of player. When they can no longer use their knowledge to plan ahead it shows.

Again, please don't try to move the goalposts. The start of this was your comment that any game element that the players can act on their knowledge was the fault of that element. It had nothing to do with a particular player type. Which you followed up with all modules are inherently flawed, because they contain information the player might know and that was the module designer's fault.

So I stand by my statement that not using publish campaign avoids the issue with player knowledge of a campaign prevents the possibly interfering with the game.

That wasn't your original statement, and is one play style. After trying to defend cheating as just another play style with the implication that all play styles are valid, are you now judging others who do not share your playstyle?

I can't police what players know but I can choose how it impacts my games by controlling its usefulness.

And I can chose how it impacts my games in other ways. For example, if a player is actively ruining the fun of other players and will not stop after talking to them, I can eject them from my game. If they are fine with making other players have less fun, intentionally (at least after us having a discussion), it is not my responsibility to coddle them.

Can a DM change a publish module? Absolutely. Is it the module or DM's responsibility to change when one player is acting on knowledge from the module? No, the onus is on that player.

 

[Stoutstien]

Again, please don't try to move the goalposts. The start of this was your comment that any game element that the players can act on their knowledge was the fault of that element. It had nothing to do with a particular player type. Which you followed up with all modules are inherently flawed, because they contain information the player might know and that was the module designer's fault.

I guess I don't understand. I stated that all cases of metagaming can be dealt with.
You said players using knowledge of publish campaigns is one case where it's unavoidable
I pointed out it is easily circumvented by simply changing it or not using it.
You stated that people who use their personal knowledge to gain an edge in published campaigns are cheating.
I pointed out once again by not using the material as printed prevents this and possible motivations that can be addressed at the same time.

published campaigns are a flawed concept.

 

[prabe]

published campaigns are a flawed concept.

Aside from any possibility of player knowledge being or becoming a problem, a thousand times "Amen!" to this.

 

[Blue]

I guess I don't understand. I stated that all cases of metagaming can be dealt with.
You said players using knowledge of publish campaigns is one case where it's unavoidable
I pointed out it is easily circumvented by simply changing it or not using it.
You stated that people who use their personal knowledge to gain an edge in published campaigns are cheating.
I pointed out once again by not using the material as printed prevents this and possible motivations that can be addressed at the same time.

published campaigns are a flawed concept.

First, you require a certain DM playstyle - one where a DM changes up published modules. New DMs especially may not feel comfortable with that. AL DMs may not have the freedom for that. Low-prep-time DMs may find that completely against why they bought a module in the first place. Your proposal on how to fix it can work, but is not a universal solution. Your statement that "all cases of metagaming can be dealt with" is shown to be incorrect.

Second, you are fixing a symptom not the root cause, and putting the onus to do that on someone other than the one who is causing the problem.