D&D General It's not a video game.

[fearsomepirate]

For me, it's more of an issue with monsters. I was running an online game, Forge of Fury I think, years ago, and when they ran into some invisible duergar, one of the players piped up, "It says here that this is a short rest ability for them, so if we leave and come back in 15 minutes, they'll be visible."

Anyway, duergar invisibility lasts indefinitely and is at-will in my campaigns now.

 

[jmartkdr2]

How is it possible to think it’s not cheating?

It isn't in any other context I can think of, so pretty easy.

Where did you learn that reading the module isn’t cheating?

The fact that for video games, it's expected play. Not reading ahead is letting the team down.

And why do you assume everyone else already knows this?

I'm not even saying it's not cheating in the context of ttrpgs, I'm saying it's not universal knowledge.

If it's a rule of DnD, it should be in a rulebook, yes? Can you tell me which page? I might have missed it.

 

[Reynard]

For me, it's more of an issue with monsters. I was running an online game, Forge of Fury I think, years ago, and when they ran into some invisible duergar, one of the players piped up, "It says here that this is a short rest ability for them, so if we leave and come back in 15 minutes, they'll be visible."

Anyway, duergar invisibility now lasts indefinitely and is at-will in my campaigns now.

I bet the phenomenon in general is more common in online games with randos.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think it comes down to the there are two (relevant) types of gms thay change how reading ahead or at all should be viewed.

The first rinse NPCs ministers and the world in a way fitting with player actions and is likely to make some attempt at making sure treasure is sufficiently evenly available for everyone's needs. Reading the module for these gms is a jerk move

The second gm runs the module pretty much exactly as it's written. If PCs make mice with some npc but .ideal in after shaking on the agreement the gm notices it says the npc is hostile it will suddenly go from friendly chatter to attacking the players. If the treasure in the module is a bad fit for the party or the party misses whatever crazy book like explicitly
Saying they want to go about removing the apolstry on a chair is required to find it... too bad that's what the module says.

With the second type of hm tge players are almost forced to read the module so they can act exactly as the module expects them to. Unfortunately the GM advice in the dmg is sorely lacking in areas that would help these (often newer low experience) gms really grow or feel confident in making specific choices in reaction to player activity.

As an extreme example I recently saw of that second type... players came across a dragon's cave, scouted stealthily and saw the sleeping dragon hatching pair inside before deciding to make nice by offering gold plus spellcasying teaching. Everything is going great.. their board went from like 200cp to 500gp, wizard is literally teaching them to ritually cast comprehend languages. Gm starts trading and days "oops it says they immediately aytack* everyone roll initiative"... soon after I noticed more than one player openly say things they could only know by reading the hardcover without even trying to be subtle and I'm not sure anyone could blame them given how obvious it had been for so long before it was effectively confirmed that it really didn't matter what players did of that action wasn't in the hardcover. They might as well make what little effort they can to do what ot assumes they will do is likely at worst a srmi-reasonable justification for them at that point


*when the players openly walked in the front of the cave with weapons sheathed the hatchlings opened with a friendly "hello!" And the party had been chatting with what they thought was a new friendly set of npc contacts for a good ten minutes of table time at this point

Only the second type (those who run the module as written as much as possible) reward this kind of play. But here where people learn it: video games always run the module exactly as written.

The first type (those who use the module as a rough framework and source of ideas) don't really need to worry about it.

 

[iserith]

If it's a rule of DnD, it should be in a rulebook, yes? Can you tell me which page? I might have missed it.

It's a table rule and is discussed in passing in the D&D 5e DMG section on Table Rules ("Decide how you feel about a player sharing information that his or her character wouldn't know..."). But these are not the rules of the game, but rather the table rules of how the game is played which is set by individual groups.

For some people, table rules form a sort of morality or identity ("Thou Shalt Not Metagame..."), particularly if they don't have much exposure to other groups who think differently, which is often why we see such a visceral response to other people who simply don't care about it or question the value of worrying about it.

 

[fearsomepirate]

The fact that for video games, it's expected play. Not reading ahead is letting the team down.

In video games, D&D has more in common with single-player games than MMOs. You're playing through a story once, not loot-farming a boss 735 time to get a rare drop. Playing a game with a walkthrough the first time is generally regarded as pretty lame, if not "cheating."

 

[Reynard]

In video games, D&D has more in common with single-player games than MMOs. You're playing through a story once, not loot-farming a boss 735 time to get a rare drop. Playing a game with a walkthrough the first time is generally regarded as pretty lame, if not "cheating."

Aside re: video games: You can't cheat at a single player game. Games are supposed to be fun. Use the guide. Lower the difficulty. ENJOY yourself.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Back in my day, beating Super Mario Bros 3 meant playground bragging rights, and doing it with a Game Genie did not. Regardless, D&D isn't a multiplayer video game. Reading the module ahead of time to know where the traps are and how many times to hit the BBEG before you can use Power Word: Kill is cheating.

 

[Mallus]

WTF!?

Why would you do that?

Well, to cheat. I thought that was obvious. To make sure our characters got the best treasure -- ie magic items -- with the least death.

Note that I wasn't defending that behavior, merely mentioning that the Reddit kids weren't the first people to try to cheat in D&D.

 

[el-remmen]

It seems like there are two general responses to encountering this being expressed in this thread:

1. This unconscionable cheating and such a person should be punished and/or bounced from the table.
2. Considering the reason and context (<-----this part is really important) for why this is happening and trying to determine a way to get everyone on the same page about approach to play and what is appropriate.

Personally, I prefer the second choice. It may end up leading to the first choice anyway, but I like to know motivations and figure out ways forward, if possible.